Case
Solvency
Solvency 1NC
Federal agencies already did the plan in 2011 – didn’t solve
Bryan Walsh – 7/8/11, senior editor at TIME, Can the U.S. Close Its Seafood Trade Deficit?, TIME,
http://science.time.com/2011/07/08/can-the-u-s-close-its-seafood-trade-deficit/print/
The federal government has shown signs that it wants to jumpstart the domestic aquaculture industry.
Last month NOAA and the Department of Commerce finalized a new set of national aquaculture
guidelines, with particular attention paid to growing shellfish production and potentially opening
aquaculture in the rich Gulf of Mexico. “This is going to provide a national approach to sustainable
domestic marine aquaculture,” Larry Robinson, the assistant secretary for conservation and
management at NOAA, told reporters last month.” By developing sustainable domestic marine farming
we increase food security, keep dollars here and support working waterfronts.” All of those goals are
possible, but it’s going to take more than official guidelines. Americans will need to decide that a
domestic aquaculture industry is worth having, worth supporting—and worth the space. “”Fish farming
is one of the most efficient ways to produce protein, and we can and should be doing more of it,” says
NOAA’s Rubino. “But whether we choose that path remains to be seen.”
Plan doesn’t cause commercialization – not economical
James Kirkley – July 2008, Professor of Marine Science in the Department of Fisheries Science at the
College of William and Mary, “The Potential Economic Ramifications of Offshore Aquaculture,” Offshore
Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities,
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/economics_report/econ_report_all.pdf
Despite apparent evidence that offshore aquaculture is not only economically feasible but also capable
of generating substantial contributions to the U.S. economy, there remain many obstacles which may
hinder its development and adoption. In this study, it was demonstrated that production of five species
popular with U.S. consumers is economically feasible, provided certain conditions prevailed. Foremost
among these conditions is that prices received will hold at certain levels. Given the increasing level of
imports, it is quite possible that prices received for the primary products will decrease. Also, if resource
conditions do improve in the future, the landings of wild-caught cod and winter flounder would likely
expand. The sea scallop resource is already at a high level of biomass. In addition, all of the species can
be produced near-shore as opposed to offshore, and there are likely to be cost savings for inshore or
near-shore operations. There remain many other concerns which may limit the development of offshore
aquaculture outlined in other chapters in this report. There are potential uncertainties about obtaining
loans, which will be necessary for satisfying up front investment costs. In all instances, these investment
costs are quite high and will likely deter individuals or firms from investing in offshore aquaculture.
There is considerable uncertainty about what constitutes best management practices (BMPs) for various
operations. Present analysis does, however, support the development of offshore aquaculture in waters
within 25 nautical miles of shore. Finally, it is concluded that operations farther offshore will require
larger projects, or farms, and higher levels of investment.
States solve in the squo – California proves
Eric Bradley – 1/8/14, Press-Telegram, California Coastal Commission approves aquaculture facility off
Long Beach shore, http://www.presstelegram.com/business/20140108/california-coastal-commissionapproves-aquaculture-facility-off-long-beach-shore
The California Coastal Commission on Wednesday approved the state’s first aquaculture farm to be
located in federal waters about eight miles offshore of Long Beach. Known as Catalina Sea Ranch, the
facility by KZO Sea Farms will primarily grow Mediterranean mussels on 45 lines anchored in the sea
floor and suspended horizontally by buoys from a depth of a few feet to 200 feet, in a 100-acre patch of
ocean near two existing oil production platforms. The willingness of KZO to agree to extensive
monitoring for its first-of-a-kind project helped earn unanimous approval from commissioners. Phillip
Cruver, co-founder of Long Beach-based KZO, said the ranch, which was previously approved by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, will “put a small dent” in the nation’s $10-billion annual seafood importation
deficit. According to National Marine Fishery Service data, 33.7 million pounds of live farmed mussels
were imported into the United States in 2012, most of it from Prince Edward Island in eastern Canada.
“We could grow our own (mussels) and save that 3,500 air miles of carbon footprint,” Cruver told the
commission. Organizations like Heal the Bay, though not opposed to the project, argued for frequent
inspections and video reviews of the site. “I think it’s imperative that we are monitoring almost every
aspect of this project,” said Dana Murray, a Heal the Bay marine and coastal scientist. She also was
concerned about KZO’s plan to cultivate nonnative Pacific oysters, but Coastal Commission staff said the
species, though not native, has already been introduced to California waters and is the No. 1 planted
and harvested oyster in the state. Concerns were ameliorated further when KZO said it would consent to
monitoring at the facility beyond the five years outlined in its consistency certification. Catalina Sea
Ranch’s business plan calls for six years of operation to produce a good return for investors, though the
life of the equipment is 10 years, according to Cruver. He told the Los Angeles News Group last year that
the farm could produce 774,000 pounds of mussels and 18,000 pounds of oysters in the first year of
operation worth more than $1.5 million.
Regulations not key – scientific hurdles offshore aquaculture development – Gulf
proves
Kristen M. Fletcher – 2004, Marine Affairs Institute @ Roger Williams University School of Law, Law &
Offshore Aquaculture: A True Hurdle or a Speed Bump?, Efforts to Develop a Responsible Offshore
Aquaculture Industry in the Gulf of Mexico: A Compendium of Offshore Aquaculture Consortium
Research, Bridger, C.J., editor, http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/lawand-offshore-aquaculture.pdf
The legal and regulatory environment surrounding offshore aquaculture is cited consistently as one of
the major hurdles to its development in the United States. Despite the adoption of the National
Aquaculture Act in 1980, the lack of a sound legal and regulatory structure is still cited as the culprit for
lack of a U.S. industry. In reality, the present regulatory regime is inadequate because it is based upon
laws that were adopted to address issues or industries other than aquaculture. Because aquaculture
facilities affect traditionally governed areas such as water supply, the use of navigable waters, food
production, and environmental protection, multiple federal and state agencies have jurisdiction over the
industry. While these agencies have excelled at regulating and permitting land-based aquaculture
regimes with refined and stream-lined licensing procedures and regulations, the offshore aquaculture
regulatory structure looks significantly different with no single lead agency and differences in
regulations between states and regions. Many claim that these issues must be resolved before a
sustainable industry can emerge. Law and policy research conducted in tandem with the environmental
and technological research of the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Consortium revealed some
specific legal mechanisms that need to be addressed but highlighted the reality that offshore
aquaculture can develop within the present structure. This chapter describes some of these immediate
legal hurdles but concludes that political and scientific issues serve as much greater hurdles than the
legal and regulatory regime.
Fishing is inevitably doomed – climate change
MSC Mar 16, 2010 (Marine Stewardship Council, committed to being the world’s leading certification
program for sustainable wild-capture seafood, “Climate change and fish” Mar 16, 2010.
http://www.msc.org/about-us/program-improvements 7/4/14 J.M.)
Our oceans and fish stocks may be under threat from changing water temperatures. Fisheries and
communities around the world could be affected.¶ If our climate changes, the temperature of oceans, seas and lakes
will change too. We don’t yet know the full impact on fishing and marine ecosystems, but it seems likely that vulnerable marine
species will be under more pressure.¶ Many fisheries will be seriously affected as the ecosystems that
underpin them face new and uncertain challenges.¶ How will climate change affect fish and fisheries?¶ The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that:¶ as sea temperatures change, fish numbers
will change and fish will move to different areas¶ some species will go extinct in particular areas¶
predators and prey will move to different areas, disrupting food chains¶ wetlands and other low lying
habitats where fish reproduce will be covered by rising sea levels¶ water in lakes will get warmer¶ bad
weather may stop fishers going to sea¶ These changes may affect fisheries worldwide, but the impacts are likely to be particularly damaging for
fishers in developing countries.
Solvency – Plan Happened 2NC
Obama’s first term was a huge boost for the aquaculture industry – already created a
framework for development
Erich Luening - 1/2/2013, “Obama's First Term Aquaculture Successes,”
http://marthasvineyard.patch.com/groups/erich-luenings-blog/p/bp--obamas-first-term-aquaculturesuccesses
With the Obama Inauguration for a second term in January, a look at the aquaculture policy successes of
the first four years of the administration shows significant momentum in establishing new policies for
the industry among other positive developments. Under the first Barack Obama presidency the first
National Aquaculture Policy (NAP) was adopted, along with the coordination of aquaculture and other
marine stakeholders under the president’s National Ocean Council’s (NOC) Draft Implementation Plan,
indicating a serious effort to push the domestic seafood farming sector forward, say aquaculture policy
makers and industry members. Aquaculture professionals say there has been a change in how
aquaculture is perceived at least on the policy level over the last four years. “I can see that starting to
happen slowly now,” said Sebastian Belle of Maine Aquaculture Association, at the December
Northeastern Aquaculture Conference and Expo. NAP was the most significant and most headlined
aquaculture development under Obama’s first term, Dr. Michael Rubino, the Director of Aquaculture at
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA, told Aquaculture North America but there
were other accomplishments made on-the-ground that were important as well. “There was a fair
number of the sort of nots in bolts things that happened too,” he said. “Certainly when Jane Lubchenco
was appointed as NOAA director they asked us to look at everything we are doing, stakeholders and all,
on aquaculture.” The NOAA went around the country and got input at several public meetings as well.
“The federal government hadn’t done that in 10 years, and we got a broad economic view. NOAA policy
was addressed on the kind of things we do as far as marine stewardship and engagement,” Rubino said.
“Going back 40 years, there have been several commissions, all the way up to the establishment of the
National Oceans Council in 2004, and others in between. They all have had aquaculture components, all
saying the same thing. Aquaculture has to be done sustainably, with trade policy and good science
behind it.” It’s fair to say that the adoption of the NAP came out of all of those commissions over the
years enhanced by the efforts under Lubchenco to get NOAA officials out to different regions of the
country to add their voices and interests to the dialogue around framing the new policy. In the summer
of 2011, the United States National Aquaculture Policy was announced, making headlines as the first of
its kind in a country that has 95,471 statute miles of tidal shoreline and 200 nautical miles from those
coasts out to sea as part of the Exclusive Economic Zone, according to NOAA. The new aquaculture
policy and its components, which reflect the public comments received after draft policies were released
on February 9, focus on: encouraging and fostering sustainable aquaculture that increases the value of
domestic aquaculture production and creates American business, jobs, and trade opportunities; making
timely management decisions based on the best scientific information available; advancing sustainable
aquaculture science; ensuring aquaculture decisions protect wild species and healthy coastal and ocean
ecosystems; developing sustainable aquaculture compatible with other uses; working with partners
domestically and internationally; and, promoting a level playing field for U.S. aquaculture businesses
engaged in international trade, working to remove foreign trade barriers, and enforcing our rights under
U.S. trade agreements.
Solvency – No Commercialization 2NC
Too many barriers to offshore aquaculture – no technology, investment risk, price
competition, and foreign subsidization
Upton and Buck – 10, Harold F. Upton and Eugene H. Buck, Analyst/Specialist in Natural Resources
Policy @ CRS, August 9, 2010, Open Ocean Aquaculture,
http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Sep/RL32694.pdf
A broad array of questions is associated with the viability and impacts of open ocean aquaculture
initiation and expansion. These concerns are further complicated by factors such as evolving production technology, uncertain
economic costs and benefits, and environmental and social impacts. Generalizations are also difficult to make because of the variety of
candidate species, associated technologies, and potential scales of operation. Major categories of concerns related to open ocean aquaculture
development include (1) biological, operational, and business concerns related to development of a new industry; (2) potential social and
economic impacts; (3) potential environmental impacts; and (4) the legal and regulatory environment.6 Biological, Operational, and Business
Concerns Species and Technology Current
species and culture techniques—including species selection, egg/larval
production, and nutritional/dietary requirements—are somewhat limited. Development of open ocean
aquaculture probably will need further research, and new culture techniques may be required for
rearing species not presently grown. Many economically important species are currently being studied at various universities and
research institutes for possible culture, including amberjack, black sea bass, blue mussels, cobia, cod, corvina, flounder, haddock, halibut,
mahimahi, mutton snapper, red drum, striped bass, tuna, and yellowtail snapper. Other research topics being investigated include hatchery
culture technologies; automated feeder design; culture of new species; disease identification and control; cages and husbandry technology for
rough water environments; identification of alternative food sources; nutrition requirements; definition of carrying capacity of offshore waters;
appropriate mooring systems; drifting and self-powered cages; federal regulatory structure; and environmental monitoring technology. Since
open water aquaculture is a relatively new industry, many potential operators are inexperienced with
the technical requirements for open ocean facilities. Historically, development has been limited by
technology that requires water depths of 100-150 feet; this narrow band of acceptable depth exists
from ¼ mile to about 50 miles offshore, depending on location. Open ocean aquaculture facilities, moored or
floating miles off the coast in a high-energy environment, experience numerous environmental
conditions that differ from nearshore aquaculture operations, including exposure to wind and wave
action from all directions, short and steep wave patterns, strong currents, seasonal anoxic (oxygen-lacking)
conditions, and other severe ocean conditions that can prevent operators from being able to access their
cages for days to weeks.7 Systems have been developed to overcome these obstacles, including cage designs that do not deform
under strong current and wave loads, submersible cages, and single-point moorings. Cage-mounted autonomous feeding systems have been
developed that can operate both at the surface and submerged. Others have developed closed containment systems for open ocean use to
address environmental concerns. Universities and private-sector research interests are developing automated buoys that can monitor the
condition of stock and feed fish on a regular basis for weeks at a time. Other research groups are working on automated, floating cages that
would travel with the currents and be tracked by satellite.8 These ship-like structures could float on favorable oceanic currents or be held in the
same location with low-energy thrusters. Financing Estimating profitability and securing
financing is difficult for new open
ocean aquaculture companies because of an uncertain regulatory environment, the risk associated with operating
in exposed open ocean locations, the risk of catastrophic events (e.g., severe storms), limited operational
experience, and high capital start-up costs. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture development assert that, without some form
of long-term (at least 25 years) permitting or leasing of the water surface, water column, and seabed, open ocean aquaculture will have
significant problems in securing capital from traditional funding sources and in obtaining suitable insurance on the capital investment and
stock.9 Such leasing may be problematic unless property rights beyond the territorial sea are clarified. The availability of insurance on stock and
equipment is relevant to, and can facilitate obtaining, front-end capital for open ocean aquaculture. The insurance sector has more than 30
years of experience in managing and insuring risks to conventional aquaculture stock and equipment for a variety of situations and conditions.
Although the insurance industry is unlikely to view pilot projects favorably, many say that the earlier the insurance industry is brought into
developing open ocean aquaculture, the earlier insurers are likely to be comfortable with the risks that must be insured. Proponents of open
ocean aquaculture suggest that, if profits are to be made, sufficient investment capital must be available as soon as property rights, permitting,
and environmental concerns are resolved. More pessimistic
critics suggest that open ocean aquaculture is unlikely
ever to have an adequate economic return on investment, and that investment should rather be
focused on improving nearshore or shore-based aquaculture. Eventually, the level of capital investment in open ocean
aquaculture will likely depend on whether its rate of return is competitive with investment alternatives. Economic Potential The economic
potential of U.S. aquaculture will likely depend on both operational costs and product prices. Costs will
largely depend on several factors, including U.S. regulation, the technology adopted, and national and international economic conditions.
Economic conditions will determine labor, energy, capital, and other input costs. Prices of U.S. aquaculture products will likely depend on world
demand and the prices of competing products. Competing products include similar imported cultured products, similar wild species, and other
agricultural product substitutes such as chicken, pork, and beef. The
level of government support in other countries is
often greater than that provided in the United States. Some say that government assistance could promote
the initial development of a U.S. open ocean aquaculture industry, but global market forces would likely
determine whether it matures or withers. The United States has been, for the most part, a technological innovator, and the use
of marine resources to farm new species with high market value could give the United States a competitive edge. On the other hand,
operating costs and environmental standards in other countries are often lower. In addition to capital
costs, the location of aquaculture facilities further from shore will necessitate higher costs for fuel,
security, and/or surveillance. Land-based aquaculture products are also likely to compete with offshore
aquaculture. Most aquaculture production in the United States originates in freshwater ponds and raceways, such as catfish in the
southern United States and trout farms in Idaho and North Carolina. Advances in more intensive culture techniques such as closed systems10
are another means to increase production with minimal environmental impacts. Cobia, a candidate species for offshore aquaculture, is
currently being cultured in land-based tanks 300 miles from the ocean in freshwater by regulating its physiology.11 Initial reports documenting
production are optimistic, but the commercial viability of this particular type of aquaculture is unknown. Shoreside Infrastructure Supportive
shoreside infrastructure, including hatcheries and nurseries, does not exist and would need to be developed. Support industries have the
potential to provide employment and other economic benefits to coastal communities. If open ocean aquaculture becomes viable, these
businesses should also grow. However, the relatively high value of shoreline property could be an impediment to finding appropriate sites,
especially waterfront sites in coastal areas. Development and Partnerships Fostering industry/academic partnerships may benefit open ocean
aquaculture development.12 Some suggest that, for development to occur, open ocean aquaculture should be considered “big science” along
the lines of atomic/nuclear physics research and the Human Genome Project. In this light, the developing open ocean aquaculture industry may
benefit by seeking and promoting partnerships with multinational industrial, agricultural, and pharmaceutical corporations.13 Proponents
argue that this is the most likely way for open ocean aquaculture to obtain the ocean engineering, marine technology, and floating platform
infrastructure at the necessary scale of production. The developing industry will also need to refine biological methods related to commercialscale hatchery and grow-out facilities. They also state that, without
domestic financial support, aquaculture innovation
will likely come from other countries already providing greater investment in technology development.
Multiple obstacles to commercialization – at best, the aff overcomes them by
producing high-end fish that don’t solve food security
Clare Leschin-Hoar – 3/23/12, covers fishing and sustainable seafood for The Wall Street Journal, The
Christian Science Monitor, and Scientific American, The big blue: Can deepwater fish farming be
sustainable?, Grist, http://grist.org/food/the-big-blue-can-deep-water-fish-farming-be-sustainable/
“If we’re going to feed the world protein, aquaculture is the best way to do it, and someplace we ought
to be looking is
offshore,” says Michael Rubino, director of NOAA Fisheries’ Aquaculture Program. That may be easier said than done. In
addition to challenges like nearly constant battering by ocean waves, high fuel costs for ships that maintain
the pens (in the case of the Velella Project, a manned boat remained tethered to the pod at all times, to ensure it doesn’t float too far off
course, and to house the staff monitoring the project), and an array of other technical obstacles, there’s the fact that no
regulations have been put in place. Rubino would also like to see a set of laws that are specific to open water aquaculture. “Under current
fisheries laws, aquaculture has been interpreted as fishing. We need new legislation,” he says. NOAA is interested in the progress being made
by the Velella Project, but stresses the importance of gradual, step-by-step development of this technology. “If
we can solve these
regulatory issues, we’ll issue a certain number of permits, and if those work, then in the second 10
years, we’ll issue more. [NOAA] has a stewardship mission. This has to be done in the context of healthy oceans,” says Rubino. The
other way that offshore aquaculture might expand, says Rubino, is if each regional fisheries management council (there are eight around the
country) devises its own management plan for aquaculture. That’s something the Gulf of Mexico Council [PDF] has already done, putting the
area first in line for commercial offshore aquaculture. Chris Mann,
director of Pew Environment Group’s Aquaculture
Standards Project, says that while the Velella Project does seem to have good results so far, the conversation really needs
to be about scale. “We appreciate someone like Neil thinking about aquaculture in a different way. What we’re not crazy about is taking
the CAFO model of livestock and putting it in the ocean. Fish poop in the water; if you have a massive industry, you get a lot of pollution and
problems. If you have small scale, [like the Velella Project] with a lot of water flowing through it, you have fewer problems,” says Mann. Sims
says he recognizes the need for scale, and the fact that offshore aquaculture means making use of a common resource. He’s recently applied
for permits for the next step, Velella Gamma, which will involve mooring the pod to a single point on the ocean floor and may require less staff
monitoring. This stage will also involve placing the pod closer, into water depths of 6,000 feet. And the goal will be to move toward more
automation. “Machines can work better in rough sea than people,” he adds. In
the end, economics will likely dictate whether
or not offshore aquaculture truly takes off in the next decade. “The great promise of aquaculture – the ‘Blue Revolution’
– is that it can produce a healthy and abundant supply of protein for a world that’s going to need a lot more of it, but you can only do that if you
make the right choices of species,” says Mann. He worries that
producers of larger fish are more motivated by the
marketplace, than by a drive to feed the world sustainably. “You feed the world with shellfish and
tilapia,” he says. “Not salmon or shrimp for $15 a pound.” Either way, Sims will continue to push the envelope. As he sees
it, there’s been a lot of fear-mongering about aquaculture. And, like all food production, he stresses the how in the equation. “There’s a ground
swell of recognition that this is a direction we have to go,” he says. “Let’s just do it right.”
AQC Bad – Dead Zones 1NC
Offshore aquaculture causes dead zones – aff can’t solve without creating EXPLICIT
regulations
Tim Eichenberg – 6/8/06, Director, Pacific Regional Office, The Ocean Conservancy, Testimony before
the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY STUDY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG109shrg64706/html/CHRG-109shrg64706.htm
Open ocean aquaculture is promoted as a solution to the ocean's diminishing resources. However, it also poses significant
risks, including escapement of fish, damage to the surrounding environment, harmful effects on native fish populations, and pollution. These
risks, and their consequences, are largely dependent upon the location of the operation, its size or scope, the management practices, the
capacity of the receiving water body, and the choice of species to be raised in a particular area. Fish Escapement: Perhaps the single greatest
ecological and economic threat associated with the growth of offshore aquaculture is the potential to introduce invasive species to the
surrounding ecosystem and nearby coastal communities. Millions of farmed fish escape from fish farms because of storms, human error, and
predators. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and many other authorities, escapes result in harmful interactions with
native fish, including competition with wild stock for food, habitat and mates; transfer of potentially deadly diseases and parasites to wild
stocks; and genetic modification of wild stocks through inter- breeding.\6\ Farmed fish are vastly different and can weaken the genetic makeup
of wild populations.\7\ Threat of Disease and Pollution: Offshore
aquaculture also presents numerous additional
biological threats to ocean ecosystems. Fish farms, like animal feed lots, produce enormous pollution. The
excreta from an average floating cage farm can produce nutrients and fecal matter equal to a city of 20,000-65,000,\8\ and the potential
wastes for a $5 billion U.S. industry--called for by NOAA--would discharge annually the nitrogen equivalent of
the untreated sewage of 17 million people.\9\ Depending upon pollutant composition and the cumulative effects of similar
cages in a particular area, discharges may cause harmful effects on the surrounding environment. Fish farms
can change the chemical and biological structure of the sediment under net pens, and in severe cases
cause ``dead zones.'' \10\ Additionally, outbreaks of diseases and parasites are a constant risk because the density of fish in aquaculture
operations is so much higher than in nature. Disease, pathogens, and parasites multiply rapidly in crowded pens and can spread to wild fish
stocks. Farmed species, depending upon species and diet, can even present increased public health risks to the people who consume them.
Concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), toxaphene, and dieldrine have been found to be significantly greater in farmed salmon
species than in wild species.\11\ Fish farms also use a wide variety of antibiotics, pesticides, parasiticides, hormones, anesthetics and other
chemicals that enter the marine environment.\12\ Wild fish near fish farms accumulate higher amounts of mercury,\13\ and drugs can select
for resistant bacteria, sometimes even in wild fish consumed by humans.\14\ Harmful Ecosystem and Marine Wildlife Effects: Seals, sea lions
and other marine wildlife prey on farmed fish and are targets for predator controls and, in some cases, are shot. Acoustic deterrents such as
seal bombs and intense underwater loud speakers cause disorientation, pain or hearing loss, and alter the behavior of marine species.\15\
Aquaculture operations also may require dredging, drilling, the use of large heavy anchors, and other disturbances to sediment and bottom
habitats, which can displace ocean wildlife, smother bottom-dwelling animals, destroy hiding places for young fish, and cause other ecological
changes to the sea floor. The use of fish meal to feed farmed carnivorous fish produces a net loss of fish protein, reduces wild fish populations,
and can change the distribution and reproductive success of other species throughout the marine ecosystem. It can take from 2-5 pounds of
wild fish to produce one pound of some farmed fish species.\16\ Farmed fish are fed 12 percent of the world's catch, and consume about 40
percent of the world's fishmeal supply (20 billion pounds of fish).\17\ California's ``Sustainable Oceans Act'' Our oceans are a public trust, and
any commercial farming of them must be done sustainably and with precaution. Unfortunately, current regulations and mitigation strategies at
the Federal level are inadequate to guide the aquaculture industry or manage its risks. Regulatory agencies with overlapping and conflicting
authority have caused significant confusion regarding environmental requirements, siting considerations, leasing procedures and jurisdictional
responsibility.\18\ Without
careful legislative coordination of NOAA's jurisdiction and responsibilities with
those of other agencies, we believe problems will persist, with potentially serious environmental
consequences. Moreover, it is imperative that any management regime address specifically and
comprehensively the potentially serious risks of offshore aquaculture to marine ecosystems, consumer
health and safety, fisheries, and fishing communities.
Turns the case – dead zones destroy fish reproduction and cause species extinction
American Chemical Society – 3/29/06, Ocean 'dead zones' trigger sex changes in fish, posing
extinction threat, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/acs-oz032906.php
Oxygen depletion in the world’s oceans, primarily caused by agricultural run-off and pollution, could
spark the development of far more male fish than female, thereby threatening some species with
extinction, according to a study published today on the Web site of the American Chemical Society
journal, Environmental Science & Technology. The study is scheduled to appear in the May 1 print issue
of the journal. The finding, by Rudolf Wu, Ph.D., and colleagues at the City University of Hong Kong,
raises new concerns about vast areas of the world’s oceans, known as "dead zones," that lack sufficient
oxygen to sustain most sea life. Fish and other creatures trapped in these zones often die. Those that
escape may be more vulnerable to predators and other stresses. This new study, Wu says, suggests
these zones potentially pose a third threat to these species — an inability of their offspring to find mates
and reproduce. The researchers found that low levels of dissolved oxygen, also known as hypoxia, can
induce sex changes in embryonic fish, leading to an overabundance of males. As these predominately
male fish mature, it is unlikely they will be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers to maintain
sustainable populations, Wu says. Low oxygen levels also might reduce the quantity and quality of the
eggs produced by female fish, diminishing their fertility, he adds. In their experiments, Wu and his
colleagues found low levels of dissolved oxygen — less than 2 parts per million — down-regulated the
activity of certain genes that control the production of sex hormones and sexual differentiation in
embryonic zebra fish. As a result, 75 percent of the fish developed male characteristics. In contrast, 61
percent of the zebra fish spawn raised under normal oxygen conditions — more than 5 parts per million
— developed into males. The normal sex ratio of zebra fish is about 60 percent male and 40 percent
female, Wu says. "Reproductive success is the single most important factor in the sustainability of
species," Dr. Wu says. "In many places, the areas affected by hypoxia are usually larger than the
spawning and nursery grounds of fish. Even though some tolerant species can survive in hypoxic zones,
they may not be able to migrate out of the zone and their reproduction will be impaired."
Species loss causes extinction
Warner 94, Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy,
August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p 177
Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are
expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what
they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological
relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be
too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National
Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of
species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is
like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes.
AQC Bad – Dead Zones – Enviro XT
Aquaculture harms the environment – Inadequate coordination and management of
development leads to environmental degradation.
Barg ’05 "Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (FID)" under the ownership of "FAO" and is part of
the "Fisheries Issues" data collection. Member, Fisheries Department FAO. Fishery Resources Officer.
Technical Secretary of GESAMP Working Group FAO. Board Member BIM/Irish Sea Fisheries Board FAO
Technical Secretary GESAMP. Uwe Barg. World inventory of fisheries. Impact of aquaculture on
environment. Issues Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome.
Updated 27 May 2005. [Cited 26 June 2014]
Aquaculture in common with many other sectors uses natural resources and interacts with the
environment. However, aquaculture is increasingly confronted with issues of environmental protection.
It is now generally accepted that increasing efficiency in resource use and minimizing adverse
environmental interactions will be major goals for the next decades, which will require commitment and
willingness to collaborate by all those involved, either directly or indirectly, in aquaculture development.
Much of the current controversy is centered around environmental degradation resulting in some cases
from inadequate coordination and management of development, as well as from irresponsible practices
by some entrepreneurs risking to bring the whole aquaculture sector into disrepute. Major
environmental impacts of aquaculture have been associated mainly with high-input high-output
intensive systems (e.g. culture of salmonids in raceways and cages) the effects of which included
discharge of suspended solids, and nutrient and organic enrichment of recipient waters resulting in
build-up of anoxic sediments, changes in benthic communities (alteration of seabed fauna and flora
communities) and the eutrophication of lakes. Large-scale shrimp culture has resulted in physical
degradation of coastal habitats, for example, through conversion of mangrove forests and destruction of
wetlands, salinization of agricultural and drinking water supplies, and land subsidence due to
groundwater abstraction. However, misapplication of husbandry and disease management chemicals,
collection of seed from the wild (bycatch of non-target species occurring in the collection of wild seed)
and use of fishery resources as feed inputs, are also causing concern. Mollusc culture has been held
responsible for local anoxia of bottom sediments and increased siltation. Aquaculture is the principle
reason for the introduction of freshwater fishes and experience has shown that the introduced species
will eventually enter the natural ecosystem (either through purposeful release or accidental escape).
Thus, non-native species in culture can adversely impact local resources through hybridization and loss
of native stocks, predation and competition, transmission of disease, and changes in habitat, e.g.
burrowing, plant removal, sediment mobilization and turbidity. Environmental interactions between
aquaculture farms, can include self-pollution and transmission of diseases can occur in areas where the
high density of farms forces use of water contaminated by neighbouring installations, with significant
losses of farmed stocks and financial returns. Effects can also occur at a distance with interchange of
living material between farms and a consequent spread of disease. The pressure to use resources more
efficiently, to increase competitiveness and to respond to market forces is resulting in some areas in
trends toward intensification of aquaculture production. These are associated with more sophisticated
farm management, shift to monoculture of high-value species, and the targeting of more affluent
consumers. There is an increased risk that such trends to intensification will increase environmental
impacts if inappropriate planning and management of such farming systems and, in particular, the
inefficient use of resources and inputs such as equipment and chemicals, are not avoided.
Aquaculture in squo hurts the environment
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department – 2014, “Impact of aquaculture on environment,” Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14894/en
Aquaculture in common with many other sectors uses natural resources and interacts with the environment. However,
aquaculture is increasingly confronted with issues of environmental protection. It is now generally accepted that increasing
efficiency in resource use and minimizing adverse environmental interactions will be major goals for the next decades, which
will require commitment and willingness to collaborate by all those involved, either directly or indirectly, in aquaculture
development. Much of the current controversy is centered around environmental degradation resulting in
some cases from inadequate coordination and management of development, as well as from
irresponsible practices by some entrepreneurs risking to bring the whole aquaculture sector into
disrepute. Major environmental impacts of aquaculture have been associated mainly with high-input
high-output intensive systems (e.g. culture of salmonids in raceways and cages) the effects of which included
discharge of suspended solids, and nutrient and organic enrichment of recipient waters resulting in
build-up of anoxic sediments, changes in benthic communities (alteration of seabed fauna and flora communities)
and the eutrophication of lakes. Large-scale shrimp culture has resulted in physical degradation of coastal habitats, for example,
through conversion of mangrove forests and destruction of wetlands, salinization of agricultural and drinking water supplies,
and land subsidence due to groundwater abstraction. However, misapplication of husbandry and disease
management chemicals, collection of seed from the wild (bycatch of non-target species occurring in the collection
of wild seed) and use of fishery resources as feed inputs, are also causing concern. Mollusc culture has been held
responsible for local anoxia of bottom sediments and increased siltation. Aquaculture is the principle reason for the
introduction of freshwater fishes and experience has shown that the introduced species will eventually enter the natural
ecosystem (either through purposeful release or accidental escape). Thus, non-native species in culture can adversely impact
local resources through hybridization and loss of native stocks, predation and competition, transmission of disease, and
changes in habitat, e.g. burrowing, plant removal, sediment mobilization and turbidity. Environmental interactions
between aquaculture farms, can include self-pollution and transmission of diseases and occur in areas
where the high density of farms forces use of water contaminated by neighbouring installations, with
significant losses of farmed stocks and financial returns. Effects can also occur at a distance with
interchange of living material between farms and a consequent spread of disease. The pressure to use
resources more efficiently, to increase competitiveness and to respond to market forces is resulting in some areas in trends
toward intensification of aquaculture production. These are associated with more sophisticated farm management, shift to
monoculture of high-value species, and the targeting of more affluent consumers. There is an increased risk that such
trends to intensification will increase environmental impacts if inappropriate planning and management
of such farming systems and, in particular, the inefficient use of resources and inputs such as equipment
and chemicals, are not avoided.
Chemicals used in aquaculture spread – environmental degradation ensues.
NPI ‘01
NPI National Pollutant Inventory. (2001) Emission estimation technique manual for aggregated
emissions from temperate water finfish aquaculture. Environment Australia, June 2001.
Outbreak of disease is more common in farming operations than the wild as a result of higher levels of
stress in fish, high stocking densities and establishment of conditions conducive to incubation of disease
organisms. Aquaculture provides opportunity for amplification of disease, though notably it also
facilitates early detection of outbreaks due to frequency of testing to protect valuable fish stocks.
Additionally, increased food resources near farm cages attract large concentrations of escaped and wild
fishes, which may act as vectors for the transfer of disease and parasites to other native fish. The use of
chemotherapeutants, such as antibiotics, is a concern because residuals not absorbed by the fish can
potentially enter the environment in uneaten feed and faeces. Information regarding the environmental
effects of this is limited, and accumulation adjacent to farms is a concern. There is currently an
insufficient understanding of the impacts of chemotherapeutant compounds used in aquaculture, and
growing concerns over potential environmental effects necessitates careful selection of compounds
used. Chemicals are used in finfish aquaculture for a wide range of applications. Not only are they used
in fish health, but also to control nuisance organisms on equipment such as nets, and to disinfect and
improve water quality. The use of such chemicals raises a number of environmental concerns, and they
must be registered with the National Registration Authority before use.
Economy Adv
Economy 1NC
Aquaculture trades off with fisheries – no net gain to the seafood industry
Buck 2012, Student for Master of Marine Affairs Degree University of Washington
(Lisa E. Buck, under Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Thomas Leschine, School of Marine
and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, “U.S. Development of Offshore Aquaculture:
Regulatory, Economic, and Political Factors” ProQuest, accessed JH 6/26/14)
At both the global and national levels, however, questions have been raised regarding the potential for
competition between wild-caught fisheries and aquaculture products in the seafood market [Upton and
Buck, 2010). Upton and Buck (2010) note that increased aquaculture production could have social and
economic impacts on both wild-caught fisheries and the communities that have strong ties to the
industry. While aquaculture could potentially supplement wild-caught fisheries products and provide
larger quantities of seafood at lower prices to the consumer, this could also lead to a loss of
employment in the fisheries sector. Increased supply of seafood products could lower the market cost,
leading to lowered income for wild-capture fishermen, and subsequent changes to fishing communities
reliant on the industry for livelihoods (Upton, 2010). This type of impact has been shown to occur in
both the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery and the Alaska salmon fishery, where aquaculture products were
introduced to the market and prices fell. Upton (2010) points out, however, that neither of these
industries was entirely replaced by aquaculture, and offers the opinion that the additional competition
could provide incentives for improvement of the quality of wild products, management institutions for
wild-caught fisheries, and marketing techniques. The degree of competition with wild- caught fisheries
also depends on whether new markets are created by the addition of aquaculture products to the global
market, and the speed and size of production outputs from aquaculture facilities (DOC, 2010).
Competition largely hinges on whether seafood products introduced to a market will supplant the
existing products, or whether they will create a new market, leaving the existing wild-caught products
relatively unaffected by introduction of a new product.
“Seafood Deficit” is overhyped by US Gov – export data proves.
Food and Water Watch, March 2008, Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization
that works to ensure clean water and safe food, Washington, DC,
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FishStoryMarch08.pdf (ZD)
The federal government has created a false sense of urgency in its campaign for offshore aquaculture
legislation. Consumers in the United States would be better served through: (1) a program to keep U.S.
seafood in the United States, and¶ (2) seafood safety legislation, including an increase in imported
seafood inspections, as well as U.S. inspection of foreign¶ seafood production and processing facilities.¶
*¶ The statistics used in this report are based on 2006 data, which, at the time of publication of this report, are the most current avail¶ -¶ able in
synthesized form from the NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology. The most up-to-date statistics on U.S. aquaculture¶ production are
taken from the USDA 2005 census.¶ †¶ Except off the coasts of Texas and West Florida, where state waters extend out to about nine miles from
shore.¶ iv¶ Findings¶ Only 19 percent (round weight¶ •¶ ‡¶ ) of the seafood available to U.S. consumers is from this country because the U.S.
ex¶ -¶ ports 71 percent (round weight) of U.S.-produced seafood.¶ If
we did not export U.S.-caught and farmed seafood, 66
percent (round weight) of the seafood available to U.S. consumers would be from the United States.¶ About 17
percent of the seafood available to U.S. consumers is from China and about 12 percent is from Thailand.¶ •¶ We export 20 percent of U.S.caught seafood to Europe and 13 percent to Japan where seafood safety standards are¶ •¶ high.¶
We export 69 percent of U.S.caught salmon. Only 20 percent of the salmon available to U.S. consumers is from the¶ •¶ United States,
while about 36 percent is farmed salmon from Chile, where food safety and labor standards are
questionable.¶ We export 12 percent of U.S.-caught seafood to China, the world’s center of seafood processing for re-export back to¶ •¶
the United States.¶ Nearly 15 percent of U.S. wild salmon is shipped to China, where it is processed and shipped back to the United States.¶ •¶
We export about 45,000 metric tons, round weight, of unprocessed wild salmon to China. We then import close to¶ 52,000 metric tons, round
weight, of processed salmon back from China.¶ We ship 12 percent of U.S. cod to China where it is processed and then sent back to the United
States.
Aquaculture depresses fish prices – that collapses the seafood industry
F&WW Oct 24, 2007 (Food & Water Watch, non-profit international network of organizations and
individuals involved in issues relating to developing countries, “Offshore Aquaculture: Bad News for the
Gulf.” Oct 24, 2007, https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/common-resources/fish/fish-farming/gulf-ofmexico/offshore-aquaculture/ 6/28/14)
Unsurprisingly, many fishermen do pay heed to how various factors, including aquaculture, might affect
the prices they receive for fish.¶ David Letson, a University of Miami economics professor, noted that
the potentially greater supply of fish from aquaculture in the Gulf could depress fish prices in the longer
term. However, he did stress that other factors might lessen or eliminate any price decline.14¶
Meanwhile, past experience from aquaculture in other places with other fish could portend potential
problems in the Gulf.¶ In 2006, offshore cod farming in Norway got a thumbs-down from a professor at
the Norwegian College of Fisheries Science. Terje Vassdal pointed out that it could decrease the price of
wild cod, which “could be a national economical catastrophe” for the country.15¶ Similarly, a 2005
University of British Columbia study concluded that “a decrease in the price of sablefish will ultimately
follow an increase in sablefish supply to market from aquaculture. This decrease will be at the expense
of both sablefish farmers and fishers in Canada but beneficial to sablefish consumers, which in this case
are mainly Japanese. Thus, benefits are exported while costs are entirely absorbed within Canada.” 16¶
For two decades prior to that, commercial fishermen in British Columbia had seen the prices they
received for salmon decrease by two thirds, in large part be-cause of aquaculture increasing the salmon
supply worldwide.17¶ The story was similar next door in Alaska in the late 1990s and into the 21st
century when “very rapid growth in farmed salmon production outstripped the growth in demand,
glutted farmed salmon markets and severely depressed prices for farmed (and wild) salmon,” according
to Gunnar Knapp, an economist at the University of Alaska at Anchorage. His research found that the
large supply of farmed fish contributed to a “drastic drop in the ex-vessel value of the Alaska salmon
harvest.”18¶ Researcher Michael Weber found that the lower prices commercial fishermen received
“contributed to such financial instability in fishing fleets along the Pacific coast of the United States that
many fishermen simply went out of business, with dramatically negative effects on the economies of
rural coastal communities.”19¶ Other studies paint a similar picture of salmon prices after the
emergence of salmon aquaculture: “Peak salmon prices in 2002 were 54-92 percent lower than they
were in 1988. Many salmon fishers in the region [Pacific northwest] who bought their boats and permits
during the high price years of the late 1980s and early 1990s can no longer afford to stay in operation
and pay off their debts.” 20¶ From 1992 to 2001, the value of the Alaskan salmon harvest plunged from
$600 million to a bit more than $200 million, a drop of more than 60 percent, according to a Food &
Water Watch analysis of economist Gunnar Knapp‚ research.21,22 A similar price crash would devastate
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico fishing industry, which in 2006 landed more than $41 million worth of cobia,
pompano, grouper, and snapper, all valuable finfish.23
Can’t shrink the seafood trade deficit – shrimp, salmon, and fishmeal imports are
inevitable
Upton and Buck – 10, Harold F. Upton and Eugene H. Buck, Analyst/Specialist in Natural Resources
Policy @ CRS, August 9, 2010, Open Ocean Aquaculture,
http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Sep/RL32694.pdf
In 2008, the United States imported approximately 5.2 billion pounds of edible seafood worth a record
$14.2 billion.14 After accounting for exports valued at $4.3 billion, there was a trade deficit of
approximately $9.9 billion in edible seafood products. The two largest components of U.S. seafood
imports are shrimp and salmon. Shrimp accounted for $4.1 billion and salmon accounted for $1.6 billion
of total U.S. imports.15 In contrast to the increasing level of seafood imports and the growing
proportion of imports produced through aquaculture, the value of annual U.S. aquaculture production
of edible fish appears to have leveled off at approximately $672 million in 2005.16 Proponents claim
that development of open ocean aquaculture would narrow the U.S. deficit in seafood trade. However,
many economists would counter that the seafood trade deficit is not a sufficient reason to advocate for
development of a new industry. According to economic theory, countries gain from free trade when
they specialize in products that they are best at producing.17 If other countries have an absolute or
comparative advantage in aquaculture, the United States would likely benefit from specializing in other
industries. Others assert that in reality, most trade is not strictly free as economic theory might assume.
It is also often difficult to determine how technological development and future economic conditions
will affect comparative advantages of different nations or regions. Although shrimp and salmon account
for a large portion of the seafood trade deficit, they appear to be poor candidates for open ocean
aquaculture. Most shrimp aquaculture is carried out in ponds in tropical coastal areas. Salmon
aquaculture operations generally use net-pens in protected areas such as fjords or bays. It is
questionable whether open ocean aquaculture can be competitive with established inshore aquaculture
of these species. One of the current offshore aquaculture operators foresees future investment focusing
on new species in tropical and subtropical regions.18 If many of the proposed species for open ocean
aquaculture are carnivores, it is likely that the demand for fishmeal produced from low-value wild fish
will increase. If domestic supplies are insufficient, imports of fishmeal could increase the U.S. trade
deficit. However, these imports may be beneficial to the overall national economy, if the domestic
aquaculture industry is economically viable.
Aquaculture can’t solve seafood deficit – Asian production still cheaper
Food & Water Watch, 08
Food & Water Watch, March 2008, “Why Offshore Fish Farming Will Not Break U.S. Dependence on Imported Seafood,”
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FishStoryMarch08.pdf, NR
However, the claim that an increase in fish production would break the U.S. reliance on foreign seafood
is way off the mark because it ignores the reasons why the United States imports such a vast quantity of
seafood in the first place. In search of the lowest possible prices, large retailers purchase seafood from
around the world. Nearly 20 percent of the seafood available to U.S. consumers comes from China, and
close to half from Asia as a whole.4 All the while, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s badly broken
import safety program allows contaminated seafood to reach consumers. Imports of cheap and
contaminated seafood have pushed down prices to the point that U.S. seafood sellers now look abroad
to sell their products. “It’s getting harder and harder to sell a premium product in America,” said tilapia
produc er Israel Snir.5 In 2006, the United States exported more than 70 percent of its wild-caught and
farmed seafood6 Following this pattern, if commercial offshore aquaculture were permitted here,
producers would most likely export the majority of their fish, as well. Close to 90 percent of farm-raised
tilapia is exported, leaving U.S. consumers to eat Tilapia from China and other countries. 7 Unless the
sea-food industry changes its trading habits, the development of U.S. offshore aquaculture would have
little effect on the volume of seafood imports.
Aquaculture not sufficient to solve – FDA and food prices are the real problem.
Food and Water Watch, March 2008, Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization
that works to ensure clean water and safe food, Washington, DC,
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FishStoryMarch08.pdf (ZD)
However, the
claim that an increase in fish production¶ would break the U.S. reliance on foreign seafood is
way off¶ the mark because it ignores the reasons why the United¶ States imports such a vast quantity of seafood
in the first¶ place. In search of the lowest possible prices, large retailers purchase seafood from around
the world. Nearly 20¶ percent of the seafood available to U.S. consumers comes¶ from China, and close to half is from Asia as a whole.¶ 4¶
All¶ the while, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s badly¶ broken import safety program allows
contaminated seafood¶ to reach consumers.¶ Imports of cheap and contaminated seafood have pushed¶
down prices to the point that U.S. seafood sellers now look¶ abroad to sell their products. “It’s getting harder
and harder¶ to sell a premium product in America,” said tilapia producer Israel Snir.¶ 5¶ In 2006, the United States exported more¶ than 70
percent of its wild-caught and farmed seafood.¶ 6¶ Following this pattern, if
commercial offshore aquaculture¶ were
permitted here, producers would most likely export¶ the majority of their fish, as well. Close to 90 percent of¶
farm-raised tilapia is exported, leaving U.S. consumers to¶ eat tilapia from China and other countries.¶ 7¶ Unless the sea¶ -¶ food industry
changes its trading habits, the
development¶ of U.S. offshore aquaculture would have little effect on the¶
volume of seafood imports.¶ Given that offshore aquaculture is not the solution to¶ our import problem, we should not rush blindly
into the¶ development of this risky new industry. Consumers in¶ the United States would be better served by a thoughtful evaluation of the
human health, environmental, and¶ socio-economic effects of offshore aquaculture, the ways in¶ which those effects could be prevented or
minimized, and¶ whether these known costs are worth the predicted benefits¶ of offshore fish farming.
Squo solves, fish imports are declining and US supplies are projected to increase
Kirkley, J.E., NOAA, 2008, “International Trade in Seaf¶ ood and Related Products:¶ An Assessment of
U.S. Trade Patterns,”
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/tradecommercial/documents/usinternati
onaltradereport_draft_August_4.pdf (ZD)
There is an emerging trend, however, of dec¶ lining supplies of fore¶ ign imports. In 2007,¶ the U.S.
imported less shrimp than in 2006; shrimp imports dropped from $4.1 billion to¶ $3.8 billion. The total
value¶ of imports of all products,¶ however, was marginally down¶ relative to the value of imports in¶ 2006—from $13.4 billion
in¶ 2006 to $13.45 billion¶ (2006 constant dollar value) in 2007. It is¶ anticipated that the weakened U.S. dollar¶ combined with strengthening
currencies of¶ other nations will divert¶ foreign supplies to¶ other nations in 2008. This has already¶ happened in early 2008 with EU nations¶
increasing their imports of shrimp¶ from Southeast Asian nations.¶ In addition to the weakening dollar, the U.S.¶ is experiencing severe
economic problems,¶ which can be expected to¶ affect the domestic demand fo¶ r seafood. Although there is¶ conflicting evidence to support
th¶ e notion that fish is a luxury commodity compared to a¶ necessity, there
is strong ev¶ idence to suggest that the dom¶
estic consumption of seafood,¶ at least on a per capita basis, will likely decline in 2008. Higher energy prices and a¶ weakened
U.S. dollar will cause a downward¶ shift in the away from home demand for¶ seafood in 2008, which is the primary mark¶ et outlet for seafood
consumption. The¶ economic stimulus package of the current administration may offset reduced¶ discretionary income in 2008, but¶ it is not
expected¶ to substantially affect the demand for¶ seafood. Countering
this potential outcome, however, is¶ a report from H.M.
Johnson¶ Associates (2001), which predicted U.S.¶ supplies would increase by 40.5 % between¶ 1999
and 2025. Similarly, reports by the United States Department of Agriculture and various priv¶ ate firms all forecast enhanced demand and¶
sales in the future. And then we have the la¶ test dire forecast publis¶ hed in Science by an¶ international group of economists and ecologi¶ sts
that the world’s supply of seafood will¶ run out by 2048.
Seafood deficit has minimal impact on economy – total US trade deficit much larger
Myers, Joseph J, MS, MBA, NJ Department of Agriculture, 5/3/13, “2012 US seafood trade deficit –
what can pecans say about aquaculture?”
Each spring brings the start of a new hatchery season in US aquaculture. The spring also brings the
release of trade data by the US Census Bureau, so once again we take a look at the seafood trade deficit
(where imports exceed the exports) and how these figures compare to other trade categories. This year,
not only do we take a look at the seafood trade deficit, but also describe an example of how the global
food market has greatly changed another U.S.-grown product, which could indicate a potential impact
on domestic aquaculture production.¶ The 12 years of trade data we have has enabled us to employ a
basic regression analysis. When we completed the analysis in 2011, we found a strong negative
correlation between time period and seafood trade deficit value in US$. That equation predicted a
deficit value of $10.82 billion projected value for 2012. The actual value in 2012 is a deficit of $10.96
billion, which grew slightly less than 1% to from the previous year. The regression including the actual
2012 value remains significant (P = 0.000) and the R2 is 0.934. The seafood category also maintained its
rank at #17 among all deficit-contributing categories in the U.S. Census Bureau data set.¶ To give some
perspective, the overall trade deficit of $728.9 billion, grew only 0.21% over previous year. (00190) Wine
and Related Products ($7.029 billion) captured its former spot as the second largest trade deficit
contributor after being displaced by (00000) Green Coffee in 2011. Surpluses in (22090) Civilian aircraft,
engines, equipment, and parts exceeded the (00200) Feedstuff and Food-grains category. The (10000)
crude (crude oil) deficit declined 5.81% as the deficit in (10110) Gas-natural declined 40.7% in 2012,
after a 75.1% decline in 2010-2011. The numbers in parentheses are the five digit NAICS codes of these
respective trade categories.
Economy – Industry Tradeoff 2NC
Plan reduces fish prices – empirically proven in shrimp and salmon
Upton and Buck – 10, Harold F. Upton and Eugene H. Buck, Analyst/Specialist in Natural Resources
Policy @ CRS, August 9, 2010, Open Ocean Aquaculture,
http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Sep/RL32694.pdf
However, aquaculture production could supplant commercial fishery production. The lower prices (and
revenues to fishermen) for commercial landings could result in the failure of least efficient businesses,
loss of commercial fishery-related employment, and disruption of fishing communities. However, the
degree of displacement would depend on the similarity of products, the scale of aquaculture
production, and the characteristics of associated markets for seafood products. Imports of shrimp and
salmon have resulted in lower prices and greater consumption. Over the last 30 years, domestic shrimp
production from the wild fishery has remained relatively constant while imports of aquaculture shrimp
have increased. In 2007, over 90% of all shrimp consumed in the United States were imported.19 Prices
and associated vessel revenues have also decreased resulting in fewer active commercial fishing vessels
in the Gulf of Mexico fishery.20 During the last two decades, the salmon industry has also experienced
major changes related to aquaculture. Farmed fish production has significantly increased total salmon
supply and been responsible for much of the observed decline in prices.21 Because of lower prices, the
value of Alaskan wild salmon landings decreased from approximately $800 million per year in the late
1980s to approximately $300 million per year for the period from 2000 to 2004.22 The income of many
Alaska fishermen also declined, as well as permit and boat values. From 2000 to 2004 about two-thirds
of U.S. salmon consumption was farmed and one-third was from capture fisheries targeting wild
stocks.23
Economy – Can’t Decrease Imports 2NC
Aquaculture Won’t Reduce Seafood Trade Deficit – Will Continue Current Import
Patterns
Cufone 08
Marianne Cufone, 4/8/08, Food & Water Watch, “Ocean Fish Farms Will Not Eliminate Seafood Trade Deficit,”
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/ocean-fish-farms-will-not-eliminate-seafood-trade-deficit/, NR
Washington, DC — Commercial-scale open ocean aquaculture will not eliminate our seafood trade
deficit despite government claims, according to a new report by Food & Water Watch. The report
entitled Fish Story: Why Offshore Fish Farming Will Not Break U.S. Dependence on Imported Seafood,
explains why ocean fish farming, the growing of fish in huge cages out in open ocean waters, will not
significantly reduce the $9.2 billion U.S. seafood trade deficit and in fact poses a grave threat to oceans,
coastal communities and fishing. “The U.S. government has been pushing to open public waters to an
industry that has failed to demonstrate that the practice is environmentally sustainable, technically
possible or financially viable on a commercial scale,” said Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch
Executive Director. “Offshore aquaculture will not solve our import problem and, furthermore, could
threaten human health and the environment.” Fish Story examines seafood trade patterns and the track
record of existing ocean fish farms to demonstrate how an expanded U.S. ocean fish farming industry is
not likely to reduce U.S. dependence on seafood imports. According to the report, the United States
exports more than 70 percent of its seafood to countries where it fetches the best prices. In turn, U.S.
retailers buy their seafood from wherever they can get it cheapest, oftentimes in places with lower
quality and health standards, such as China and Thailand. “These trading patterns benefit the bottom
lines of global seafood companies, and unfortunately, we consumers are the ones who lose out,” stated
Hauter. “We are importing cheaper seafood that may have been produced in conditions that would not
be legal in the United States. Add this to an inadequate food inspection program that inspects less than
two percent of all imports, and were looking at a potential human health disaster.” Likely fish grown in
offshore aquaculture cages would follow the current export pattern, says Food & Water Watch, and the
small quantity of newly farmed fish likely to be kept in this country would not offset the vast amount of
fish imported. In order to help lessen the seafood trade deficit, Food & Water Watch recommends
reducing U.S. reliance on imports by decreasing exports, and increasing domestic consumption of
seafood that was caught in the United States. In fact U.S. fishermen already harvest enough fish to
satisfy more than half of domestic consumption.
Aquaculture Can’t Solve Trade Deficit – We Grow the Wrong Fish
Fleming 07
Adina Fleming, 12/17/07, CLATL, “Offshore aquaculture: What does that mean?,” http://clatl.com/omnivore/archives/2007/12/17/offshoreaquaculture-what-does-that-mean, NR
Perhaps most importantly, the argument used to support offshore aquaculture is that it can help close
the U.S. seafood trade deficit. But there's reason to believe the practice won't do much for that deficit at
all. The types of fish raised by these experimental operations are high-priced fish for fine dining
restaurants and sushi bars. These are not the types of fish the U.S. imports in high numbers. Overlooked
as well is that our trade deficit could be reduced if more domestic fish were eaten domestically, as we
currently export 71 percent of our production. So, legalizing open ocean aquaculture may pose serious
environmental, technical and economic issues. The government should focus on promoting domestic
consumption of domestic fish and work to increase the sustainability of the world's marine fisheries. In
such a new industry, the largely lacking scientific consensus on the potential harm of the practice signals
the need for a precautionary approach. As consumers, we should try and be aware of where our fish
come from, and what kinds of farming practices we are supporting.
Aquaculture won’t solve deficit – US fishers will continue to export.
Food and Water Watch, March 2008, Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer organization
that works to ensure clean water and safe food, Washington, DC,
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FishStoryMarch08.pdf (ZD)
aquaculture reckless, its purported benefits are highly questionable. The administration’s¶
campaign for ocean fish farming is blind to the current trends in the global seafood trade. The United
States exports more¶ than 70 percent of its high-quality wild-caught and farmed seafood, while
importing cheaper seafood from countries such¶ as China and Thailand, which have spotty food safety records. Meanwhile, Japan
and Europe have high seafood safety¶ standards and receive nearly half of U.S. exports. Following this pattern, if commercial
offshore aquaculture were permit¶ -¶ ted here, producers would most likely export the majority of their fish for high-dollar
returns, and U.S. consumption of¶ imported seafood would remain largely unaffected.¶ Compounding this trend are U.S.
companies that export a significant amount of wild-caught seafood to China, have it¶ processed under more lax food safety and labor laws, and shipped back the United States. The equivalent of 15
percent of¶ U.S. wild-caught salmon and 12 percent of cod is exported to China unprocessed and then imported
back from China, in¶ processed form. With predictions that this practice will increase and expand to South Korea, the development of offshore¶
aquaculture could end up benefiting processors in Asia, not the United States.¶
Not only is the push for offshore
Other factors to blame for deficit, aff can’t solve – international regulations have
shifted the US to importing.
Kirkley, J.E., NOAA, 2008, “International Trade in Seaf¶ ood and Related Products:¶ An Assessment of
U.S. Trade Patterns,”
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/tradecommercial/documents/usinternati
onaltradereport_draft_August_4.pdf (ZD)
The seafood trade deficit is in large part due¶ to the rapid internati¶ onal expansion of low-¶ cost, aquacultured, marine products. Many¶
nations have expanded their aquaculture¶ industry because they enjoyed a comparative¶ advantage over our wild¶ harvesters and our¶
emerging aquaculture industry.¶ This has been particularly¶ true for shrimp and salmon¶ products. Another
reason for increased
imports by the U.S. has been restrictions on¶ imports of farm-raised produc¶ ts imposed by other
nations¶ 2¶ that have subsequently¶ enhanced market opportunities in the Unite¶ d States. Additional
factors include the¶ relative strength of the U.S. economy which ha¶ s diverted products in international
trade¶ from other major seafood importing markets su¶ ch as Japan and the European Union, to¶ domestic markets.
The value of the dollar rela¶ tive to other currencies is a related factor¶ attracting imports to the U.S. as
were th¶ e less stringent U.S. health standards for¶ contaminates found in imported, aquacultured
products. In addition, a federal program to¶ globalize trade by reducing or eliminating trade¶ barriers has
attracted products to the U.S.¶ marketplace.¶ 3¶ Lastly, the regulatory environment in the U.S. for wild
capture and¶ aquacultured marine resources reduced the¶ productivity of domestic¶ seafood suppliers.¶
For example, despite numerous attempts, Co¶ ngress has failed to pass a comprehensive¶ aquaculture act to liberalize the permitting pr¶ ocess
for offshore aquaculture facilities in¶ the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Food Security Adv
Food Security 1NC
Aquaculture will be used to produce luxury goods – doesn’t solve food insecurity –
empirics prove
TWN Feb 1, 2001 (Third World Network, non-profit international network of organizations and
individuals involved in issues relating to developing countries, “The negative impacts of aquaculture:
Locals deprived.” Feb 1, 2001. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/pact-ch.htm 6/28/14)
One of the basic tenets of aquaculture is to increase food production. The important question is, for whom?
Aquaculture, which has been hailed as THE answer to cheap production food for the millions in the poor
Third World countries has instead been utilised to produce luxury delicacies such as fat prawns for the
consumption of the already over-fed, affluent and wasteful societies in developed countries such as
Japan and US.¶ It has also brought a huge amount of profits to industrialists and investors who deal with
high-technology gadgetry in pellet fishfood and vaccine research and production, ice production,
processing, transport, etc.¶ Meanwhile, the small-time fishermen and fish farmers lose out and the diet of
local people gets impoverished. In Malaysia, tiger prawn is sold for about 32 ringgit (US$13) per kg, double the
cost of a kg of beef, out of reach for the general local population.¶ It is ironic then, that most of the world's top
suppliers and exporters of shrimps and fish are countries where most of its own people are
undernourished: Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and India.
Status quo solves – Indonesia
The Fish Site, 6/27/14 ( Indonesia – TheFishSite Business Directory is a growing international
database of those companies who support the global fish industry. “Indonesia Plots Master Plan for
Aquaculture Development” - http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/23509/indonesia-plots-master-planfor-aquaculture-development)
INDONESIA - The development of fish farming in Indonesia is increasingly playing an important role in
the world's fishing industry¶ Because aquaculture production supplies about 45 per cent of fishery
products consumed worldwide and the rapid global demand for fishery products continues to grow,
while the supply through traditional sources is stagnant, the Indonesian government said it is continuing
in its efforts to promote the sustainability of the supply and demand of fishery products in the future
through the development of environmentally friendly and sustainable cultivation technology.¶ Secretary
General of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Sjarief Widjaja speaking in Jakarta, said that in
addition to the technology development, the government is inviting stakeholders to participate actively
in fishing and collaborate to construct a fisheries policy that contribute to build a secure supply of
fishery products in a sustainable manner.¶ "Therefore, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries has
called on WorldFish, an international non-profit organization in Asia, to put together a master plan for
national aquaculture by 2020, through the Future Indonesian Aquaculture research projects that will be
implemented over 18 months", said Sjarief.¶ Sjarief said, Indonesia Aquaculture Futures is a collaborative
project between the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and WorldFish that will provide a great
opportunity to comprehensively seek to increase the value of consumption and production of the
fishery sector.¶ The project is expected to develop scenarios of supply and demand for fishery products
for the future, and to build an understanding of the opportunities and challenges to foster sustainable
aquaculture in Indonesia.¶ "The results of this project is important to us and will be constructive as
additional input and continuous efforts in ensuring sustainable growth of aquaculture development as
well as production and consumption of fishery products in Indonesia", said Sjarief.¶ Sjarief added,
according to a report from the World Bank and FAO, in 2030 it is estimated that almost two-thirds of the
consumption of fishery products in all over the world will come from aquaculture.¶ The Asian region
including South Asia, South East Asia, China and Japan are projected to make up 70 per cent of the
global fish demand.
The plan privatizes the ocean – causes overfishing and doesn’t solve food security
Dr. John Volpe - 2014, Assistant Professor of Invasion and Fisheries Biology at the University of
Alberta, Offshore Aquaculture Viewpoints, PBS,
http://www.pbs.org/emptyoceans/fts/offshore/viewpoints.html
The economies of scale that are being talked about in the offshore industry is about generating profit,
not about generating food. This is the leading edge of a privatization that has a much broader horizon.
With just aquaculture, we're looking at tapping the common resources in the ocean itself. The future
plans are very worrying. The individual states along the West Coast particularly have run across very
strident oppositions with the coastal aquaculture model. So the motivation now on the part of the
federal government is to remove the jurisdiction from the states, off shore and in the economic
exclusion zone. We're moving coastal or state input in the decisions. We're taking a very flawed model
that is essentially a net loss of protein production and then amplifying that model hundreds, perhaps
thousands of times. This is really a money grab and is the leading edge of the privatization of the
offshore environment, the last common, truly common environment left on this earth – the privatization
of the ocean. Aquaculture is the way of the future and there's definitely room for aquaculture on this
coast. What there is not room for is this simple Wild West, money grubbing, economic bottom-line-only
model. We need to produce food, not profit.
Overfishing Turn – Aquaculture causes overfishing – farmed fish are fed wild-caught
fish
WWF Global (nd), “Aquaculture problems: Fish feed- Aquaculture is contributing to overfishing
through the use of wild-caught fish as feed for farmed fish”ahttp://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/aquaculture/fish_feed/
Most farmed marine fish and shrimp species are carnivorous. They are either fed whole fish (mainly in the
case of tuna) or pellets made of, amongst other things, fishmeal and fish oil. In both cases, the fish used as
feed are caught from the wild. The amount of feed needed for farmed fish and shrimp is staggering. For
example: up to 22kg of wild-caught fish is needed to produce just 1kg of farmed tuna 4kg of wild-caught
fish is needed to produce 1kg of farmed salmon up to 2kg of wild-caught fish is needed to produce 1kg
of farmed marine shrimp This means that the aquaculture industry is using a large proportion of the fish
caught in the world’s oceans each year. Many of the fish stocks used as feed - mostly anchovies, pilchards,
mackerel, herring, and whiting - are already fished at, or over, their safe biological limit. So instead of relieving
pressure on the marine environment, aquaculture is actually contributing to the overfishing crisis that
plagues the world's fisheries.
And that turns the advantage – overfishing causes food insecurity
Nellemann- UNEP- ‘8, C, In Dead Water – Merging of climate change with pollution, over-harvest, and
infestations in the world’s fishing grounds. United Nations Environment Programme
The World’s oceans provide one of the largest (not domesticated) food reserves on the planet. Overall, seafood provided
more than 2.6 billion people with at least 20 per cent of their average per capita animal protein intake (FAO, 2006). Capture fisheries and aquaculture supplied the
world with about 106 million tonnes of food fish in 2004, providing an apparent per capita supply of 16.6 kg (live weight equivalent), which is the highest on record
(FAO, 2006). Capture fishery production has, however, remained static, and it is only the rise in aquaculture, now accounting for 43% of the total consumption, that
enabled this increase (FAO, 2006). Worldwide, aquaculture has grown at an average rate of 8.8 per cent per year since 1970, compared with only 1.2 per cent for
capture fisheries in the same period. Despite fishing capacity now exceeding current harvest four-fold, marine capture has declined or remained level since 2000,
reflecting over-harvest in many regions (Hilborn et al., 2003; FAO, 2006). A major reason why the decline has not become more evident is likely because of advances
in fishing efficiency, shift to previously discarded or avoided fish, and the fact that the fishing fleet is increasingly fishing in deeper waters. The overall decrease in
landings is mostly related to declines in fishing zones in the Southeast and Northwest Pacific oceans (FAO, 2006). In addition, the living resources in the World’s
oceans, including those so essential to mankind, are not randomly or evenly distributed. They are largely concentrated in small regions/areas and hotspots, of which
continental shelves and seamounts – under-water mountains – play a crucial role. The
safety of the World’s oceans as a food source
for future generations is however insecure. Over the last decades, there has been continuing exploitation and
depletion of fisheries stocks. Undeveloped fish reserves have disappeared altogether since the mid1980s. During the last decades, there has been a continued decline in fish resources in the ‘developing’
phase, and an increase of those in the depleted or over-exploited phase. This trend is somewhat offset by the emergence
of resources in the ‘recovering’ phase (Mullon et al., 2005; FAO, 2006; Daskalov et al., 2007). There is little evidence of rapid recovery in
heavily harvested fish populations, except, perhaps herring and similar fish that mature early in life. An investigation of over 90 different heavily
harvested stocks have shown little, if any, recovery 15 years after 45–99% reduction in biomass (Hutchings, 2000). This is particularly true as most
catch reductions are introduced far too late (Shertzer et al., 2007). Indeed, marine extinctions may be significantly
underrated (Casey and Meyers, 1998; Edgar et al., 2005). More importantly in this context is not the direct global extinction of species,
but the regional or local extinctions as abundance declines. Local and regional extinctions are far more common than global
extinctions, particularly in a dynamic environment like the oceans.
Alt cause – food distribution issues cause food insecurity
Sustainable Table 14
(In an article titled “Food security & food access,” http://www.sustainabletable.org/280/food-securityfood-access)
Although it is commonly thought that world population will outstrip food production capacity, current
production of food exceeds global population requirements. Historically, famines and widespread
hunger have been caused by problems of food distribution (political or logistical) rather than by
insufficient food production. Although the global population is expected to rise in the next several
decades, global hunger is predicted to decline. ¶ Reverend Thomas Malthus, writing in the late 18th
Century, warned that global population would exceed the Earth’s capacity to grow food. Malthus
suggested that population grows exponentially, while food production grows only arithmetically.
Despite having been largely debunked, this theory has remained prominent in the discourse regarding
hunger, the world’s population carrying capacity, and the need for increased agricultural technology
(e.g., genetically modified organisms). It is also worth noting that in an historical context, Malthus’s
argument was a warning about population increase amongst the poor. Malthus and his cohort described
the poor as breeding too rapidly, thus depriving the rest of the population of food; famine was seen as a
“natural” defense against overpopulation. Several well-known famines in history, such as the Irish
Potato Famine and several Indian famines in the late 19th century, were caused not by lack of food, but
by lack of political will to distribute the food to the starving poor. During these famines, Ireland and
parts of India were actually exporting food to various other English colonies. Malthusian theories were
used to support political choices to avoid helping the starving. Food distribution, rather than total food
production, continues to be a global problem in solving food insecurity. ¶
Asia produces enough fish now – over 90% global production
Allison Dec 5, 2011 (Edward H. Allison, marine biology degree, a PhD in fisheries assessment and
management, Professor at the University of Washington Seattle · School of Marine and Environmental
Affairs, Director and principal scientist - Policy, Economics and Social Science WorldFish Center,
“Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security.” Dec 5, 2011
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf Page 40. 7/4/14 J.M.)
Asia has long traditions in aquaculture of carps, but the rapid growth and diversification of the industry
has ¶ largely taken place within the last 40 years, when growth has often exceeded 10 percent annually
and now ¶ contributes more than 90 percent of global production. This growth has been driven by rising
demand from ¶ growing and urbanizing populations, stagnating supplies from capture fisheries,
investment in education and ¶ technology research, a dynamic private sector and high levels of public
investment in infrastructure to support ¶ agricultural development. The past fifteen years has seen the
emergence of a vibrant SME sector, particularly in ¶ China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and the
Philippines, which targets both domestic and international markets ¶ (Beveridge et al., 2010). ¶ The
aggregate data on Asian aquaculture all show increases in the volume and value of trade, increased ¶
contribution of production to agricultural GDP, and, in some cases, increased availability of fish in domestic ¶ supply
as well (e.g. Figure 8, section 3.2). That this translates into improved food security and reduced
incidence ¶ or prevalence of poverty is then often simply assumed, although this is not necessarily the
case if revenues ¶ accrue largely to a small number of wealthy people, or the growing middle classes in
Asian cities increase their ¶ fish consumption, but nothing changes for the poor and hungry. Once again,
deeper analysis is needed before ¶ causal linkages can be inferred and poverty and food security
benefits for aquaculture can be claimed.
Obama already pushing to strengthen food security
Tullo, 14 , Michelle Tullo is a veteran journalist with Inter Press Service (IPS) News Agency. “US turns
attention to ocean conservation, food security”
(http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/en/features/green/34162-u-s-turns-attention-to-oceanconservation-food-security)
A first-time US-hosted summit on protecting the oceans has resulted in pledges worth some $800
million to be used for conservation efforts.¶ During the summit, held here in Washington, the
administration of President Barack Obama pledged to massively expand US-protected parts of the
southern Pacific Ocean.¶ In an effort to strengthen global food security, the president has also
announced a major push against illegal fishing and to create a national strategic plan for aquaculture.¶ “If
we drain our resources, we won’t just be squandering one of humanity’s greatest treasures, we’ll be cutting off one of the world’s leading
sources of food and economic growth, including for the United States,” President Obama said via video on Tuesday morning.¶ The “Our Ocean”
conference, held on Monday and Tuesday at the US State Department, brought together ministers, heads of state, as well as civil society and
private sector representatives from almost 90 countries.¶ The
summit, hosted by Secretary of State John Kerry, focused
on overfishing, pollution and ocean acidification, all of which threaten global food security.¶ In his
opening remarks, Kerry noted that ocean conservation constitutes a “great necessity” for food security.¶
“More than 3 billion people, 50 percent of the people on this planet, in every corner of the world depend on fish as a significant source of
protein,” he said.¶ Proponents hope that many of the solutions being used by US scientists, policymakers and fishermen could serve to help
international communities.¶ “There is increasing demand for seafood with diminished supply…. We
need to find ways to make
seafood sustainable to rich and poor countries alike,” Danielle Nierenberg, the president of FoodTank, a
Washington think tank, told IPS.¶ “For instance, oyster harvesters in the Gambia have really depleted the oyster population, but a
US-sponsored project has been able to re-establish the oyster beds—by leaving them alone for a while. The same strategy—to step back a bit—
worked with lobster fishers in New England.Ӧ Nierenberg predicted that with diminishing wild fish, the future of seafood would be in
aquaculture.¶ “What aquaculture projects need to do now is learn from the mistakes made from crop and livestock agriculture,” she said. “It
doesn’t always work—for instance, maize and soybeans create opportunities for pest and disease. Overcrowding animals creates manure.”
Food Security 2NC – Doesn’t get to the Food Insecure
Won’t feed the poor – food will go to livestock, nourished countries and trade.
Allison Dec 5, 2011 (Edward H. Allison, marine biology degree, a PhD in fisheries assessment and
management, Professor at the University of Washington Seattle · School of Marine and Environmental
Affairs, Director and principal scientist - Policy, Economics and Social Science WorldFish Center,
“Aquaculture, Fisheries, Poverty and Food Security.” Dec 5, 2011
http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/WF_2971.pdf Page 38. 7/4/14 J.M.)
At first glance, the idea that a low income food deficit country whose population suffers high rates of
malnutrition ¶ should be exporting nutritious food to over-fed consumers in wealthy countries appears
abhorrent. This is surely ¶ a market without morality, little better than the ‘noxious markets’ trading in,
say, human kidneys (Satz, 2010). ¶ Apparently equally problematic is the idea that low cost fish that
could be eaten by undernourished low-income ¶ consumers is instead fed to poultry, pigs and (mostly)
farmed fish, destined for the tables of the over-nourished ¶ (see section 3.3, for a partial refutation of
that argument). Such views are, however, based on an over-simplified ¶ and sometimes simply
inaccurate representation of the globalized trade in fishery products. This is not to deny ¶ that such
criticisms may be valid in some circumstances, but to demonize trade in general closes down an ¶
important route out of poverty (and hunger) through economic growth. Equally, to uncritically state
that trade ¶ is - under all conditions and for everyone - good for poverty reduction, and therefore food
security, is also an ¶ over-simplification.
Food Security 2NC – Overfishing – A2: Plan Solves
Can’t change feeding practices – the science isn’t ready and it’s not economical
Folke et al. Nov 13, 2006 (Lisa Deutsch- Director of Studies and center researcher, researches
ecological effects of globalization of food production systems and national policy, PhD in Natural
Resource Management at the Department of Systems Ecology, Sara Gräslund- Junior Professional
Officer, International Waters, Global Environment Facility, Carl Folke- Director of the Stockholm
Resilience Centre and Director of the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics of the Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, Max Troell- Associate Professor, Systems Ecologist. Researcher at the Beijer
Institute and Stockholm University, Miriam Huitric- PhD Programme Director Social-Ecological Resilience
for Sustainable Development, Nils Kautskya- PhD Marine Systems Ecology, Professor Marine
Ecotoxicology, Louis Lebeld- Ph.D Zoology from University of Western Australia, “Feeding aquaculture
growth through globalization: Exploitation of marine ecosystems for fishmeal” Global Environmental
Change Volume 17, Issue 2, May 2007, Pages 238–249. Available online 13 November 2006.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378006000719 6/28/14)
While significant research is underway to reduce the percentage of fishmeal in feed, the success of
these efforts is unclear (Hardy, 1999; Tacon, 2004). In general, fishmeal protein has not proven highly
substitutable (Sugiura et al., 2000 cited in Hardy and Tacon, 2002; Webster et al., 1999). Various
alternatives to fish protein in feeds are being evaluated, including waste from seafood processing
plants; terrestrial animal by-product meals (Tacon, 2002); synthetic amino acids (as used in livestock
feed (Deutsch and Björklund, unpublished manuscript); agricultural by-products, such as palm kernal
expellents (Tacon, 2002); or unicellular bacteria, fungi and algae (Tacon, 2002). However, it remains
to be seen whether these alternatives are economical and can actually be used in commercial
aquaculture; some present potential human health risks, for example fish wastes often contain toxic
contaminants (Hites et al., 2004). While industry acknowledges the problem and the portion of
fishmeal in feed is in fact decreasing in several species—increases in production volumes, especially
for such dominant species as carp, has meant that efficiency increases have been more than
counterbalanced by growth in production (Goldburg et al., 2001).¶ The aquaculture industry does not
perceive increased demands for fishmeal as a potentially insurmountable problem. It is predicted
instead that aquaculture will increase its use of fishmeal at the expense of pig and poultry production
because these animals can substitute vegetable proteins, such as soybeans, in their diets (Seafeeds,
2003) and use synthetic amino acids. This has indeed been the pattern of development historically,
since the amount of fishmeal used in the animal feed industries has remained relatively constant
between 25 and 34 Mt (Tacon, 2003c), while the aquaculture sector has continuously increased its
use of fishmeal (see Box 1).
Food Security 2NC – Alt Cause
Alt cause – global shift to commodity crops displaces food crops
Sustainable Table 14
Various political-agricultural practices contribute to food insecurity worldwide. These include
substituting commodity crops for food crops (e.g., growing corn instead of vegetables) and heavy
exportation of food crops at the expense of food security of the exporting country. In addition, the
recent demand for biofuels, currently produced primarily from corn and soy, has further decreased the
amount of viable arable land being used for food production. ¶ The United States overproduces
commodity crops (particularly corn, wheat, and soy) in part due to government subsidization; healthful
food and sustainable agriculture has not been historically promoted in US food and farming policy. The
FAO’s definition of food security includes a provision describing access to “nutritious” food; however, in
many low-income areas, it is easier to access cheap, unhealthful food (such as fast food), often
produced primarily from commodity crops. In addition, the US exports a high proportion of its
commodity crops to the rest of the world. For example, in 2010, over 53 percent of all corn exports in
the world were from the US. The exportation of these commodity crops affects farmers in the rest of
the world – especially small farmers with limited resources. A large influx of commodity crops from the
US can affect local food security, as small farmers cannot compete with less expensive (subsidized) USproduced agricultural products. ¶
Alt cause – lack of investment in agriculture, natural disasters, displacement, and food
wastage
WFP ‘14
World Food Programme is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger, as well as the United Nations frontline agency. “Hunger:
What Causes Hunger?”. 2014. http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people. And yet, one person in eight on the planet goes to bed
hungry each night. In some countries, one child in three is underweight. Why does hunger exist? There are many reasons for the
presence of hunger in the world and they are often interconnected. Here are six that we think are important. Poverty trap People living in
poverty cannot afford nutritious food for themselves and their families. This makes them weaker and less able to earn the money that would
help them escape poverty and hunger. This is not just a day-to-day problem: when children are chronically malnourished, or ‘stunted’, it can
affect their future income, condemning them to a life of poverty and hunger. In developing countries, farmers often cannot afford seeds, so
they cannot plant the crops that would provide for their families. They may have to cultivate crops without the tools and fertilizers they need.
Others have no land or water or education. In short, the poor are hungry and their hunger traps them in poverty. Lack
of investment in
agriculture. Too many developing countries lack key agricultural infrastructure, such as enough roads,
warehouses and irrigation. The results are high transport costs, lack of storage facilities and unreliable water
supplies. All conspire to limit agricultural yields and access to food. Investments in improving land management,
using water more efficiently and making more resistant seed types available can bring big improvements. Research by the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization shows that investment in agriculture is five times more effective in
reducing poverty and hunger than investment in any other sector. Climate and weather. Natural
disasters such as floods, tropical storms and long periods of drought are on the increase -- with
calamitous consequences for the hungry poor in developing countries. Drought is one of the most
common causes of food shortages in the world. In 2011, recurrent drought caused crop failures and
heavy livestock losses in parts of Ethiopia, Somalia and Kenya. In 2012 there was a similar situation in the Sahel region of West
Africa. In many countries, climate change is exacerbating already adverse natural conditions. Increasingly, the
world's fertile farmland is under threat from erosion, salination and desertification. Deforestation by
human hands accelerates the erosion of land which could be used for growing food. War and
displacement. Across the globe, conflicts consistently disrupt farming and food production. Fighting
also forces millions of people to flee their homes, leading to hunger emergencies as the displaced find themselves
without the means to feed themselves. The conflict in Syria is a recent example. In war, food sometimes becomes
a weapon. Soldiers will starve opponents into submission by seizing or destroying food and livestock
and systematically wrecking local markets. Fields are often mined and water wells contaminated,
forcing farmers to abandon their land. Ongoing conflict in Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo has contributed
significantly to the level of hunger in the two countries. By comparison, hunger is on the retreat in more peaceful parts of Africa such as Ghana
Unstable markets. In recent years, the price of food products has been very unstable. Rollercoaster food prices make it difficult for the poorest people to access nutritious food consistently . The
poor need access to adequate food all year round. Price spikes may temporarily put food out of reach, which can
have lasting consequences for small children. When prices rise, consumers often shift to cheaper, lessnutritious foods, heightening the risks of micronutrient deficiencies and other forms of malnutrition.
Food wastage. One third of all food produced (1.3 billion tons) is never consumed. This food wastage
represents a missed opportunity to improve global food security in a world where one in 8 is hungry. Producing
this food also uses up precious natural resources that we need to feed the planet. Each year, food that
is produced but not eaten guzzles up a volume of water equivalent to the annual flow of Russia's Volga River.
Producing this food also adds 3.3 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, with
consequences for the climate and, ultimately, for food production.
and Rwanda.
Alt causes - climate change
CFS 2/27/14 (Center for Food Safety is a non-profit organization working to advocate environmental
reform to advance human health through regulating harmful food production and promoting
sustainable organic agriculture, “New Report Connects Climate Change & Food Insecurity” – February
27, 2014 – http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/2948/new-report-connects-climatechange-and-food-insecurity)
Underscores Organic Agriculture's Climate Resilience Food
security requires a stable climate and, according to a new report
released today by Center for Food Safety’s Cool Foods Campaign, this security is being jeopardized by climate change. The
report, “Food and Climate: Connecting the Dots, Choosing the Way Forward,” outlines the climate requirements for successful food production,
and examines two competing food production methods – industrial and organic – to reveal how they contribute to the climate problem, how
resilient they are in the face of escalating climate shocks, and how organic agriculture can actually help to solve the climate crisis. “It isn’t
widely discussed, but the industrialization of our food supply is a major driver of global climate change, and, ironically, this is undermining our
future ability to produce an adequate supply of food” said Cool Foods Campaign director Diana Donlon. “In fact, taken in the aggregate, the
global food system is responsible for approximately half of all greenhouse gases.” Droughts
and heat waves in 2012 in the U.S.
alone affected approximately 80 percent of agricultural land, causing an estimated $30 billion in damages.
Already in 2014, California, which produces nearly half the nation’s fruits and vegetables, is experiencing
the worst drought in its 153 year history. In the report, Center for Food Safety examines how industrial agriculture –
the dominant method of food production in the U.S. – externalizes many social and environmental costs
while relying heavily on fossil fuels. Organic farming, by comparison, requires half as much energy,
contributes far fewer greenhouse gasses, and, perhaps most surprisingly, is more resilient in the face of
climate disruption. “While our current climate trajectory is daunting, a future defined by food insecurity
and climate chaos is not inevitable. We can still alter our course. Regenerative, organic agriculture has
tremendous, untapped potential to strengthen food security while adapting to climate uncertainties and
even helping to mitigate them,” said Donlon.
Many causes of food insecurity – aff can’t solve because there are too many factors
such as climate change, corruption, diseases, and population growth
Harvest Help ’12 (Harvest Help is a website designed to detail food crises, international response,
causes of food insecurity, and ways to aid in these problems, specifically in Africa and third-world
countries. “Causes of Food Insecurity in African and Other Third World Countries” – 2012 –
http://www.harvesthelp.org.uk/causes-of-food-insecurity-in-african-and-other-third-worldcountries.html)
The majority of the severest food crises after the second half of the 20th century were caused by a
combination of several factors. The most common causes of food insecurity in African and other Third World
countries were: Drought and other extreme weather events. The comparison of the severest food crises in the later history
reveals that all were preceded by drought or other extreme weather events. They resulted in poor or failed harvests which in turn resulted food
scarcity and high prices of the available food. Pests,
livestock diseases and other agricultural problems. In addition to
extreme weather events, many failed harvests in African and other Third World countries were also caused by pests such as desert locusts.
Cattle diseases and other agricultural problems such as erosion, soil infertility, etc. also play a role in food insecurity. Climate
change.
Some experts suggest, that drought and extreme weather in regions affected by food crises in the recent decades could be a result of climate
change, especially in the West and East Africa which have problems with recurrent extreme droughts. Military conflicts. Wars and military
conflicts worsen food insecurity in African and other Third World countries. They may not be directly responsible for food crises but they
exacerbate scarcity of food and often prevent the aid workers from reaching the most affected people. Lack of emergency plans.
History of the severest food crises shows that many countries were completely unprepared for a crisis and unable to resolve the situation
without international aid. Corruption
and political instability. In spite of criticism lately, the international community has always
send help in the form of food supplies and other means which saved millions of lives in the affected regions. However, the international aid
often did not reach the most vulnerable populations due to a high level of corruption and political instability in many Third World countries.
Cash crops dependence. Many African and Third World governments encourage production of the so-called cash crops, the income
from which is used to import food. As a result, countries which depend on cash crops are at high risk of food crisis because they do not produce
enough food to feed the population. AIDS. The disease which is a serious public health concern in the sub-Saharan Africa worsens food
insecurity in two ways. Firstly, it reduces the available workforce in agriculture and secondly, it puts an additional burden on poor households.
Rapid population growth. Poor African and Third World countries have the highest growth rate in the world which puts them at
increased risk of food crises. For example, the population of Niger increased from 2.5 million to 15 million from 1950 to 2010. According to
some estimations, Africa will produce enough food for only about a quarter population by 2025 if the current growth rate will continue.
Topicality
Its 1NC
A – Interpretation:
Grammatically, this refers solely to U.S. policy
Manderino 73 (Justice – Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, “Sigal, Appellant, v. Manufacturers
Light and Heat Co”., No. 26, Jan. T., 1972, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 450 Pa. 228; 299
A.2d 646; 1973 Pa. LEXIS 600; 44 Oil & Gas Rep. 214, Lexis)
On its face, the written instrument granting easement rights in this case is ambiguous. The
same sentence which refers to the right to lay a 14 inch pipeline (singular) has a later reference
to "said lines" (plural). The use of the plural "lines" makes no sense because the only previous
reference has been to a "line" (singular). The writing is additionally ambiguous because other
key words which are "also may change the size of its pipes" are dangling in that the possessive
pronoun "its" before the word "pipes" does not have any subject preceding, to which the
possessive pronoun refers. The dangling phrase is the beginning of a sentence, the first word of
which does not begin with a capital letter as is customary in normal English [***10] usage.
Immediately preceding the "sentence" which does not begin with a capital letter, there appears
a dangling [*236] semicolon which makes no sense at the beginning of a sentence and can
hardly relate to the preceding sentence which is already properly punctuated by a closing
period. The above deviations from accepted grammatical usage make difficult, if not
impossible, a clear understanding of the words used or the intention of the parties. This is
particularly true concerning the meaning of a disputed phrase in the instrument which states
that the grantee is to pay damages from ". . . the relaying, maintaining and operating said
pipeline. . . ." The instrument is ambiguous as to what the words ". . . relaying . . . said pipeline .
. ." were intended to mean.
B – Violation
The plan does not demand direct USFG exploration of the Earth’s oceans. It merely
provides a framework for private companies to do so.
C – Standards
That’s a voter for fairness and education –
Limits – there an infinite private actors including companies, research institutions, and
foundations – impossible for the neg to predict and research them all
Ground – Key generic arguments rely on USFG direct exploration, not exploration by
another agent, which changes links to core DAs and CPs
Legal Framework 1NC
“Increase” means to become larger or greater in quantity
Encarta 6 – Encarta Online Dictionary. 2006. ("Increase"
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620741)
in·crease [ in kr
ss ]
transitive and intransitive verb (past and past participle in·creased, present participle in·creas·ing, 3rd person present singular
in·creas·es)Definition: make or become larger or greater: to
become, or make something become, larger in number,
quantity, or degree
noun (plural in·creas·es)
“Ocean development” is utilization of ocean resources, spaces, and energy
JIN 98– Japan Institute of Navigation, “Ocean Engineering Research Committee”, http://members.j-navigation.org/e-committee/Ocean.htm
2. Aim of Ocean Engineering Committee
Discussions of "Ocean Engineering" are inseparable from "Ocean Development." What is ocean development? Professor Kiyomitsu Fujii of the
In the light
of its significance and meaning, the term "Ocean Development" is not necessarily a new term. Ocean
development is broadly classified into three aspects: (1) Utilization of ocean resources, (2) Utilization of
ocean spaces, and (3) Utilization of ocean energy. Among these, development of marine resources has
long been established as fishery science and technology, and shipping, naval architecture and
port/harbour construction are covered by the category of using ocean spaces, which have grown into industries in
University of Tokyo defines ocean development in his book as using oceans for mankind, while preserving the beauty of nature.
Japan. When the Committee initiated its activities, however, the real concept that caught attention was a new type of ocean development, which was outside the
coverage that conventional terms had implied.
Violation---the plan doesn’t develop ocean resources, use space or energy – Just
creates a set of laws
Voting issue--Ground---resource-focus provides a stable and predictable direction for the topic and
creates a balanced set of arguments for each side---depth of literature on energy
resources, fishing, conservation, etc. is strong and creates high-quality debates
Limits---other interpretations make all ocean activity topical – at best the aff is
effectually topical – framework is a prerequisite to development
Owen 3 – (Daniel Owen, Consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, “Legal And Institutional Aspects Of Management
Arrangements For Shared Stocks With Reference To Small Pelagics In Northwest Africa”, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 988,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4698b/y4698b04.htm)
.2 The legal regime for management of shared stocksFor a stock shared between two or more neighbouring coastal States and not ranging onto
the high seas, the regime of Art 63(1) LOSC is appropriate. It states that:Where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur within the
exclusive economic zones of two or more coastal States, these States shall seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional
organizations, to agree upon the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of such stocks without
prejudice to the other provisions of this Part.
Regarding the term “development”, Nandan, Rosenne and Grandy[4] state that:
The reference to “development”... relates to the development of those stocks as fishery resources. This
includes increased exploitation of little-used stocks, as well as improvements in the management of
heavily-fished stocks for more effective exploitation. Combined with the requirement in article 61 of not
endangering a given stock by overexploitation, this envisages a long-term strategy of maintaining the
stock as a viable resource.
Escapes DA
Escapes DA 1NC
Open ocean aquaculture will inevitably cause fish escapes - causes intermingling in
wild populations
Rosamond L. Naylor et al – 8/3/09, Letter Opposing Open Ocean Aquaculture Signed by 10 Scientists,
Professor, Environmental Earth System Science @ Stanford University, (Felicia C. Coleman, Ph.D., Ian A.
Fleming, Ph.D., L. Neil Frazer, Ph.D., Les Kaufman, Ph.D., Jeffrey R. Koseff, Ph.D, John Ogden, Ph.D., Laura
Petes, Ph.D., Amy R. Sapkota, Ph.D., MPH, Les Watling, Ph.D.), http://mauisierraclub.org/letteropposing-open-ocean-aquaculture-signed-by-10-scientists/
Aquaculture is known to be a major vector for exotic species introduction (Carlton 1992, Carlton 2001),
causing concern over the ecological impacts that escaped farmed species can have on wild fish and the
environment, whether the farmed species are native or exotic to the area in which they are farmed
(Volpe et al. 2000, Naylor et al. 2001, Youngson et al. 2001, Myrick 2002, Weber 2003). Farmed salmon
are known to regularly escape from net pen systems, negatively impacting wild salmon stocks by
increasing competition for food and breeding sites, as well as reducing the fitness of wild fish through
interbreeding (Einum and Fleming 1997, Youngson and Verspoor 1998, Volpe and Anholt 1999, Fleming
et al. 2000, Volpe et al. 2000, Jacobsen and Hansen 2001, Volpe et al. 2001, McGinnity et al. 2003,
Naylor et al. 2005, Hindar et al. 2006). As compared to salmon aquaculture facilities, which are generally
sited in sheltered bays, net-pen systems in open ocean environments face increased risk of failure due
to increased exposure to storms and stronger currents. Developing separate broodstock to allow for
selection of desirable growth characteristics is a hallmark of traditional agriculture and livestock
production. To date, this has been common practice in aquaculture as well. However, allowing these
practices to continue for aquaculture in open ocean environments, where fish will inevitably escape,
greatly increases the risk to natural ecosystems of genetically-distinct farmed fish, even if these fish are
native to the farming area. If the U.S. is to prevent environmental damage related to fish escapes,
explicit regulations for broodstock maintenance and fish escape standards are needed that account for
both individual farm-level effects and the cumulative impact of escapes occurring across a large number
of farms. In the absence of these regulatory safeguards, permitting open ocean aquaculture in the Gulf
of Mexico at this time risks significant harm to the environment and should not be allowed.
That crushes biodiversity
De Silva et al 2/2009, professors from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin
University
(De Silva, S.,S., Nguyen, T. T. T., Turchini, G. M., Amarasinghe, U. S., & Abery, N. W., , writing in Ambio,
an environmental research studies journal, “Alien species in aquaculture and biodiversity: A paradox in
food production” Proquest, accessed 5/27/14 JH)
Fish introduction, which results in alien (i.e., exotic) species, is considered to be one of the biggest
threats to finfish biodiversity (33, 34). In the present contribution, we do not loosely use the term "invasive" to
describe any introduction of nonindigenous species or introduced species that spread rapidly in the new
region. This is because there is no strong link between invasion and its impact as suggested by Ricciardi and Cohen (35). Alien species
can impact biodiversity, directly or indirectly (Fig. 3), and these impacts can be immediate or long term.
The potential impact of alien species on biodiversity cannot be ignored easily because high-impact invaders are more
likely to belong to genera not already present in the system (36). Most watersheds within continents cover vast areas, impacts of alien species
can spread far and wide, and translocated organisms can even become invasive. Currently, aquatic habitats, particularly in
the developing world, are under serious threat from anthropogenic activities such as dam building (37) and other developments in the
watersheds (38). Most of the cultured alien species are somewhat noncatholic in their habitat requirements, and habitat deterioration often
facilitates the invasiveness of alien species, a good example being the spread of tilapias throughout Asia (39). Examples of negative
influences on biodiversity arising from fish introductions are recorded from many parts of the globe, the
most controversial one being that of the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) into Lake Victoria, Africa (40). In Asia, one of the worst documented
negative effects on fish biodiversity has resulted from the translocation of grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon ideila in Donghu Lake, Wuhan, China.
Grass carp introduction resulted in the decimation of submerged macrophytes, and the consequent ecological changes brought about an
upsurge of bighead (Aristichthys nobilis) and silver carps (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and simultaneously the disappearance of most of the
60 fish species native to the lake (41). Perhaps the impacts on biodiversity of salmonids, in particular species of trout, one of the most
extensively moved species across continents into temperate climates, have received less attention than desired. This apparent negligence could
be attributed to the dominant role of such species as recreational/sport fishery objects, which brings about significant social and economic
benefits, but not necessarily environmental benefits. Admittedly, some negative impacts of these translocations are beginning to be
Alien species, both aquatic and
terrestrial, have been responsible for the introduction of new pathogens and diseases world over (44).
From an aquaculture view point, probably the worst occurred with the introduction of the North
American crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) into Europe, which is thought to have been responsible for
the near decimation of the European crayfish (Astacus astacus) (45, 46). Evidently P. leniusculus brought with it the fungus
documented (42, 43), but a global synthesis of these translocations is urgently warranted.
Aphanomyces astaci (47, 48), although it has also been suggested that this fungus may have been inadvertently introduced through ballast
water (49). Fortunately, to date, similar large-scale decimation of finfish species through the introduction of pathogens associated with an alien
finfish species is unknown, although there have been many pathogen transfers associated with alien species in aquaculture. Changes
in
genetic diversity of natural populations resulting from molecular genetically enhanced aquaculture
escapees, estimated at about three million per year and considered to be a danger to ecosystems (50), and also from the
use of hatchery bred stocks for stock enhancement purposes, are becoming increasingly evident. Loss of diversity in a
number of natural populations of Oncorhynchus and Salmo species has been reported in watersheds in
the western United States (51, 52) and in the Atlantic watersheds in Europe (53), respectively. For example, rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) hybridize easily and extensively with threatened Apache trout (Oncorhynchus apaché) and endangered Gila trout
(Oncorhynchus gilae). It has been reported that currently 65% of Apache trout have rainbow trout alleles and, at least in one instance, one
whole native Apache trout population has been completely replaced by rainbow trout. Similarly, in Asia, introgression of African catfish (Clarias
gariepinus) genes into the native walking catfish Clarias macrocephalus has been reported in wild (54) and two broodstock populations in
Thailand (55). Consequently, it has been suggested that the indigenous walking catfish is being increasingly threatened as a result of massive
backcrossing with hybrid catfish, which is the preferred catfish of Thai catfish farmers (55). A comparable problem has been found in
Bangladesh through the use of hybrid Clarias batrachus × C. gariepinus for aquaculture (56).
Marine biodiversity is essential to all life on earth – lack of knowledge means we
should be overly cautious
Craig 3 — Robin Kundis Craig, Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of Law, 2003
(“Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida
and Hawaii,” McGeorge Law Review (34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155), Winter, Available Online via Subscribing
Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they
do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates.
For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service
coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental
fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste
treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems
provide. n857 More generally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of
all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen,
phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and
direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to
support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems.
Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of
disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more
stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most
ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component
species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem
functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise
insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus,
maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring
the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been
calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar
calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or
economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of
ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of
such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual
effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to protect
marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now
know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about
how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and
policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and
hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States has
within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not
know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will
take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and
productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and
dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of
jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.
UQ – A2: Onshore AQC Now
<extend 1NC evidence>
Link is linear – inland U.S. aquaculture is limited and growing slow – the plan creates a
rapid expansion of aquaculture in the ocean, which exponentially increases the
threats to biodiversity – every additional aquaculture farm is a step towards the
tipping point
Open ocean aquaculture is uniquely vulnerable to escapes – storms and predators
Food & Water Watch – no date, Top 10 Problems, http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/commonresources/fish/fish-farming/offshore/problems/
Offshore fish farming, also known as open ocean aquaculture, involves giant cages located about 30 feet
under water anywhere from three to 200 miles off the coast. Here are 10 reasons why this is so
problematic. Competing/Conflicting Interests Open water aquaculture facilities could cause conflict of
interest. Areas of current significant competing economic use or public value must be eliminated for
consideration for open ocean aquaculture. These areas include 1) fishing grounds and routes to those
fishing grounds; 2) vessel traffic lanes; 3) military sites and areas of concern regarding national security;
4) marine reserves and otherwise protected areas; and, 5) areas of significant multiple use. Escapement
Offshore aquaculture of finfish uses cages or pens. These containers, even if well engineered and built,
will allow some fish escapes into the open ocean, due to various complications like severe weather,
equipment failure or human error. In the case of net pens, predators may tear the enclosures.
Escapement can affect native populations through disease and dilution of locally adaptive gene
complexes, disrupt natural ecosystems and jeopardize the recovery of depleted or endangered species.
Consequences could be widespread and devastating.
Link – Plan => Escapes
Farmed fish inevitably escape and compete with wild fish for resources
Tim Eichenberg – 6/8/06, Director, Pacific Regional Office, The Ocean Conservancy, Testimony before
the SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY STUDY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG109shrg64706/html/CHRG-109shrg64706.htm
Open ocean aquaculture is promoted as a solution to the ocean's diminishing resources. However, it
also poses significant risks, including escapement of fish, damage to the surrounding environment,
harmful effects on native fish populations, and pollution. These risks, and their consequences, are
largely dependent upon the location of the operation, its size or scope, the management practices, the
capacity of the receiving water body, and the choice of species to be raised in a particular area. Fish
Escapement: Perhaps the single greatest ecological and economic threat associated with the growth of
offshore aquaculture is the potential to introduce invasive species to the surrounding ecosystem and
nearby coastal communities. Millions of farmed fish escape from fish farms because of storms, human
error, and predators. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and many other
authorities, escapes result in harmful interactions with native fish, including competition with wild stock
for food, habitat and mates; transfer of potentially deadly diseases and parasites to wild stocks; and
genetic modification of wild stocks through inter- breeding.\6\ Farmed fish are vastly different and can
weaken the genetic makeup of wild populations.\7\
No way to prevent escapes – storms, predators, and fertilization
ROSAMOND L. NAYLOR – 11/27/13, Senior Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy,
Stanford University, Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture, Issues in Science and
Technology, http://issues.org/22-3/naylor/
Opening far-offshore waters to aquaculture could lead to substantial commercial benefits, but it also
poses significant ecological risks to the ocean—a place many U.S. citizens consider to be our last
frontier. Some of the species now farmed in open-ocean cages, such as bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod, and
Atlantic halibut, are becoming increasingly depleted in the wild. Proponents of offshore aquaculture
often claim that the expansion of farming into federal waters far from shore will help protect or even
revive wild populations. However, there are serious ecological risks associated with farming fish in
marine waters that could make this claim untenable. The ecological effects of marine aquaculture have
been well documented, particularly for near-shore systems, and are summarized in the 2005 volumes of
the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Frontiers in Ecology (February), and BioScience
(May). They include the escape of farmed fish from ocean cages, which can have detrimental effects on
wild fish populations through competition and interbreeding; the spread of parasites and diseases
between wild and farmed fish; nutrient and chemical effluent discharge from farms, which pollutes the
marine environment; and the use of wild pelagic fish for feeds, which can diminish or deplete the low
end of the marine food web in certain locations. Because offshore aquaculture is still largely in the
experimental phase, its ecological effects have not been widely documented, yet the potential risks are
clear. The most obvious ecological risk of offshore aquaculture results from its use of wild fish in feeds,
because most of the species being raised in open-ocean systems are carnivorous. If offshore aquaculture
continues to focus on the production of species that require substantial quantities of wild fish for feed—
a likely scenario because many carnivorous fish command high market prices—the food web effects on
ecosystems that are vastly separated in space could be significant. In addition, although producers have
an incentive to use escape-proof cages, escapes are nonetheless likely to occur as the offshore industry
develops commercially. The risks of large-scale escapes are high if cages are located in areas, such as the
Gulf of Mexico, that are prone to severe storms capable of destroying oil rigs and other sizeable marine
structures. Even without storms, escapes frequently occur. In offshore fish cages in the Bahamas and
Hawaii, sharks have torn open cages, letting many fish escape. In addition, farming certain species can
lead to large-scale “escapes” from fertilization. For example, cod produce fertilized eggs in ocean
enclosures, and although ocean cages are more secure than near-shore net pens, neither pens nor cages
will contain fish eggs. The effects of such events on native species could be large, regardless of whether
the farmed fish are within or outside of their native range. At least two of the candidate species in the
Gulf of Mexico (red drum and red snapper), as well as cod in the North Atlantic, have distinct
subpopulations. Escapes of these farmed fish could therefore lead to genetic dilution of wild
populations, as wild and farmed fish interbreed.
Prefer our evidence – the aquaculture industry has a terrible track record
Belton et al – 2/10/04, Post-Doctoral Fellow at The WorldFish Center, Dhāka, Bangladesh, “Open
Ocean Aquaculture,” Ben Belton, Jeremy Brown, Lynn Hunter, Tracie Letterman, Anne Mosness, Mike
Skladany, http://www.iatp.org/files/Open_Ocean_Aquaculture.pdf
The aquaculture industry, using the same strategies that have proven inadequate in preventing fish
escapes from coastal facilities, offers only new net-pen designs and management plans for OAA. The
industry’s dismal record is well documented. For example, ‘Up to two million salmon are thought to
escape from farms around the North Atlantic each year’ (17). Once free, these fish may quickly
assimilate into the wild, and can compete with wild stocks for food, habitat, and mates. Interbreeding
with native fish results in genetic modification and degradation, and increased potential for disease and
parasite transfer to wild stocks (18). In many regions, such as off the coast of Maine, ‘farmed escapees
vastly outnumber wild salmon in some spawning rivers’ (19). Although most species slated for OOA
development are not andronomous, as is the case for salmonids, inherent dangers remain, particularly
with the introduction of exotics. Initial halibut and cod culture has focused on the Atlantic species, yet
there is no reason to believe that their introduction into the Pacific would yield any lesser degree of
competition, interbreeding and genetic degradation. The likelihood of GE fish escaping from ocean pens
raises even more serious ethical and biological issues.
Link – A2: Plan is only Native Species
Even native species are genetically different from wild stocks – degrades biodiversity
Goldburg et al – 2001, Marine Aquaculture in the United States: Environmental Impacts and Policy
Options, Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission, Rebecca J. Goldburg (Environmental Defense),
Matthew S. Elliott (Environmental Defense), Rosamond L. Naylor (Stanford University),
http://www.iatp.org/files/Marine_Aquaculture_in_the_United_States_Enviro.htm
Native Species Escapes of native species of farmed fish can also harm wild stocks, particularly when
substantial genetic differences exist between the farmed and wild populations. Genetic differences
often occur when farmed fish are specifically bred for aquaculture or are moved from one area to
another. Farmed fish that have been selectively bred for particular traits can be markedly different from
wild fish. Highly selected strains often have smaller fins, larger bodies, and more aggressive feeding
behavior (Fleming and Einum, 1997). Compounding these differences due to selective breeding, the
genetic makeup of some fish, such as wild Atlantic salmon, varies significantly between regions due to
evolved local adaptations (Hindar, 2001; Johnson, 2000). When farmed salmon escape, they can
interbreed with wild salmon frequently enough to change the genetic makeup of some wild stocks
(Hindar, 2001; McGinnity et al., 1997). This interbreeding can decrease the fitness of wild populations
through the loss of adaptations and the breakup of beneficial gene combinations (HSRG, 2000), and wild
stocks may be unable to readapt if escapes continue (Hindar, 2001). In Maine, escaped farmed Atlantic
salmon may threaten the survival of endangered wild stocks by flooding the wild salmon gene pool
(FWS/NOAA, 2000). Maine salmon populations are particularly susceptible to genetic perturbations
because of their very low abundance levels. For example, a December 2000 storm resulted in the escape
of 100,000 salmon from a single farm in Maine, more than 1,000 times the number of documented wild
adult salmon (Daley, 2001). Similarly, in the Magaguadavic River in neighboring New Brunswick, 82
percent of the young salmon (smolts) leaving the river in 1998 were of farmed origin (FWS/NOAA,
2000). Aquaculturists’ use of European milt (sperm) exacerbates the risk of genetic consequences. The
genetic makeup of farmed Atlantic salmon in Maine is now about 30 to 50 percent European
(NMFS/FWS, 2000).
Internal Link 2NC
Fish escapes decimate biodiversity
a. Disease
FAO ’07, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2007. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
http://www.academia.edu/1005835/Effects_of_Aquaculture_on_enviroment
Another influence of aquaculture on aquatic biology is that the escaping fishes would impact their wild neighbors in
biology. Escapees from small-scale scenarios and unreported escape cases seem to make up a large proportion of the escaped farmed fish,
based on a four-year study in the sea in Hordaland County. Furthermore, the size variability of the catches implied that the escapees originated
from several different escape events. A similar conclusion was made by Fiske, based on the fact that escaped farmed salmon sampled at one
locality had escaped at a wide range of body lengths (based on scale analyses), indicating that they originated from many different escape
events. Most salmon had escaped when they were between 50 and 80 cm long (52-66%), but a relatively large proportion had also escaped as
smoltsor post-smolts (19-42%). A study from the 1990s suggested that up to 50% of the escaped farmed salmon caught in bag nets on the coast
of Norway had escaped as smolts or post-smolts. The escaping
fishes in the aquaculture may spread diseases and change the
inheritance composition of genes of wild swarm, and infect local epidemics to wild swarms. The energy of
escaping aquatic fishes was less than the energy of 18 wild swarms. Mills found that the influence of the fishes escaping from the cages
or replanted intentionally on the wild fish swarm also would kill out local swarms by preying or feed competition. Especially
once the cross-fertilized fishes and genetically engineered fishes generated by modern biological
technology escape to the nature, the “gene pollution” may be induced, which will harm the inherit diversity of
wild swarm in the nature.
b. Displacement
Upton and Buck – 10, Harold F. Upton and Eugene H. Buck, Analyst/Specialist in Natural Resources
Policy @ CRS, August 9, 2010, Open Ocean Aquaculture,
http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Sep/RL32694.pdf
Genetic anomalies could occur if wild fish are exposed to or interbreed with hatchery-raised fish. This
issue might arise if genetically modified or non-native fish escape from aquaculture facilities and
interbreed with wild fish.42 The potential interbreeding problem can be greatly reduced if only sterile
fish are farmed; fairly simple technology exists to accomplish such sterilization. Critics speculate that,
since selectively bred and genetically modified fish may grow faster and larger than native fish, they
could displace native fish in the short term (both through competitive displacement and interbreeding),
but might not be able to survive in the wild for the long term.43 This is especially a concern of states
(e.g., California, Maine, Maryland, and Washington) where genetically modified fish are banned within
state waters but could be grown in offshore federal waters. A related concern is the introduction of
exotic species into non-native waters, such as Atlantic salmon in British Columbia. Exotic fish may escape
from open ocean facilities that may be particularly vulnerable to storms, although recent hurricanes and
tropical storms in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas have caused no reported damage or loss of fish
in submerged cage- culture operations. The escape of Atlantic salmon has been documented in the
Pacific Northwest and escapees have been recaptured in Alaskan commercial fisheries.44 Escapes are
also common in the Atlantic where 40% of the Atlantic salmon caught in the North Atlantic are of
farmed origin.45 The experience with salmon farming indicates that escaped fish could be a problem,
either through interbreeding with closely related native species (genetic interactions) or through
competitive displacement of native species. Although management techniques at net pen sites are
improving and modified cage designs better prevent escapes, closed containment systems may be the
only way to fully address this problem.
c. Exotic species
Ocean Conservancy -2010, A Precautionary Approach to U.S. Open-Ocean Aquaculture,
http://act.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/federalMarineAquaculture7.pdf
To date, promoters
of domestic open-ocean aquaculture have downplayed the significant risks that could
accompany the growth of such an industry in the US. A large body of peer- reviewed scientific literature
has identified a host of risks and impacts, including: • Escapes: Aquaculture is known to be a major
source for the introduction of exotic species, causing concern over the ecological impacts that escaped
farmed species can have on wild f ish.3 Escaped fish compete with wild fish for food and habitat,
transmit diseases, and prey on and breed with local fish, reducing the health of wild populations. • Diseases
and Parasites: Intensive fish culture has been involved in the introduction and/or amplification of pathogens and disease in wild fish populations.’ • Nutrient and
Habitat Impacts: By design, untreated wastes from open net pen systems are released directly into nearby bodies of water, which can negatively impact the
surrounding environment6 Waste and uneaten food can build up on the ocean floor beneath pens, altering species abundance and community biodiversity. •
Impacts on Predator Populations: The presence of captive fish held in high density attracts predators such as birds, sharks, and marine mammals. Techniques to
keep some of these predators at bay can impact their natural behavior and pose entanglement and drowning risks. • Drugs and Chemicals: Aquaculture often relies
on the use of chemicals including antibiotics, pesticides, and antifoulants.7 In some cases, use of antibiotics has resulted in bacterial resistance in the environment8
and has influenced antibiotic resistance in humans.9 • Increased Fishing Pressure on Wild Fish Stocks: Though counterintuitive, farming of fish can actually increase
pressure to catch wild fish. Feed for many farmed species contains high percentages of fish meal and fish oil that come from wild-caught fish.1° To feed their
livestock, the fish farming industry is creating pressure to remove key food sources on which economically and environmentally important wild species depend.’1 •
Socioeconomic Impacts: Farmed fish compete with wild fish in the marketplace.t2 While price competition may be good for consumers, it can result in negative
impacts on communities dependent on wild fish, including industry consolidation, overproduction arid elevated fishing pressure on wild fish stocks as fishermen try
to catch more to make up for lower prices at market.
Impact XT
Biodiversity decline causes extinction
Mmom 8 (Dr. Prince Chinedu, University of Port Harcourt (Nigeria), “Rapid Decline in Biodiversity: A
Threat to Survival of Humankind”, Earthwork Times, 12-8, http://www.environmentalexpert.com/resultEachArticle.aspx?ci d=0&codi=51543)
From the foregoing, it becomes obvious that the
survival of Humankind depends on the continuous existence and
conservation of biodiversity. In other words, a threat to biodiversity is a serious threat to the survival of
Human Race. To this end, biological diversity must be treated more seriously as a global resource, to be
indexed, used, and above all, preserved. Three circumstances conspire to give this matter an unprecedented urgency. First, exploding
human populations are degrading the environment at an accelerating rate, especially in tropical countries. Second,
science is discovering new uses for biological diversity in ways that can relieve both human suffering and
environmental destruction. Third, much of the diversity is being irreversibly lost through extinction caused
by the destruction of natural habitats due to development pressure and oil spillage, especially in the Niger Delta.
In fact, Loss of biodiversity is significant in several respects. First, breaking of critical links in the biological
chain can disrupt the functioning of an entire ecosystem and its biogeochemical cycles. This disruption
may have significant effects on larger scale processes. Second, loss of species can have impacts on the
organism pool from which medicines and pharmaceuticals can be derived. Third, loss of species can result
in loss of genetic material, which is needed to replenish the genetic diversity of domesticated plants that
are the basis of world agriculture (Convention on Biological Diversity). Overall, we are locked into a race. We must hurry to acquire
the knowledge on which a wise policy of conservation and development can be based for centuries to come.
Biodiversity is a key backstop – loss causes extinction
ScienceDaily – 8/11/11, “Biodiversity Key to Earth's Life-Support Functions in a Changing World,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm
The biological diversity of organisms on Earth is not just something we enjoy when taking a walk through
a blossoming meadow in spring; it is also the basis for countless products and services provided by
nature, including food, building materials, and medicines as well as the self-purifying qualities of water
and protection against erosion. These so-called ecosystem services are what makes Earth inhabitable for
humans. They are based on ecological processes, such as photosynthesis, the production of biomass, or
nutrient cycles. Since biodiversity is on the decline, both on a global and a local scale, researchers are
asking the question as to what role the diversity of organisms plays in maintaining these ecological
processes and thus in providing the ecosystem's vital products and services. In an international research
group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists from ten different universities and
research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen from the University of Freiburg,
compiled findings from numerous biodiversity experiments and reanalyzed them. These experiments
simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to determine the consequences for the functioning of
ecosystems, most of them coming to the conclusion that a higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by
an increase in ecosystem processes. However, the findings were always only valid for a certain
combination of environmental conditions present at the locations at which the experiments were
conducted and for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a study published in the current issue of
the journal Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which the positive effects of diversity
still apply under changing environmental conditions and when a multitude of processes are taken into
account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species included in the experiments promoted
ecological processes in at least one case. The more years, locations, ecosystem processes, and scenarios
of global change -- such as global warming or land use intensity -- the experiments took into account,
the more plant species were necessary to guarantee the functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other
species were always necessary to keep the ecosystem processes running under the different
combinations of influencing factors. These findings indicate that much more biodiversity is necessary to
keep ecosystems functioning in a world that is changing ever faster. The protection of diversity is thus a
crucial factor in maintaining Earth's life-support functions.
A2: Plan Regs Solve
Increased regs don’t solve alien species – poor enforcement
De Silva et al 2/2009, professors from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin
University
(De Silva, S.,S., Nguyen, T. T. T., Turchini, G. M., Amarasinghe, U. S., & Abery, N. W., , writing in Ambio,
an environmental research studies journal, “Alien species in aquaculture and biodiversity: A paradox in
food production” Proquest, accessed 5/27/14 JH)
An alien species is defined as one that has been translocated, accidentally or deliberately, beyond its natural
distribution range. In the present study, the natural distribution of the species in question was determined with reference to the
database "Fishbase" (24) and also checked against the Catalogue of Fishes of the California Academy of Sciences, also commonly referred to as
the Eschmeyer Catalogue. It is known that the great bulk of global fish introductions/ translocations
have been carried out for
aquaculture purposes (25, 26), and such introductions are a common occurrence even now (27, 28). Regrettably,
there appears to be very little adherence to codes of practices (29) in affecting translocations, even though
most nations are signatories to such codes (30). Needless to say, fresh concerns on the issue of translocations are being addressed widely, such
as, for example, the European Union Council Regulation of 1 1 June 2007 (31). Often when attention is paid to translocations it is restricted to
intercontinental introductions rather than intracontinental and between watersheds introductions, which can have an equally negative impact,
particularly on biodiversity. On the other hand, even
in nations where legislation exists to prevent minimizing the
spread of alien species, effective implementation of such laws can often be hampered by other factors
(27). Over 250 aquatic species are cultured globally. Annual production of cultured aquatic species, however, exceeds 10 000 t only for about
115 animal species, of which 67 are finfish (32). Importantly, for 6 of the top ranked 22 freshwater finfish species (produced in excess of 100
000 t per year) or species groups cultured globally, 20% or more of the production occurred outside their natural range of distribution (Fig. 1).
Although not clearly seen from Figure 1, it should be noted that, from a geographical viewpoint, the most widespread alien finfish species used
in aquaculture is rainbow trout. The mean yearly cultured alien freshwater finfish production from 2000 to 2004 amounted to 3.6 million t, or
16% of the global finfish aquaculture production (32). It has been shown that in Asia, the epicenter of aquaculture production and
development, in the last 5 y, alien finfish species accounted for 12.2% of total cultured finfish production, and the proportion was as much as
35% when PR China is not considered (Fig. 2) (19). Moreover,
it is evident that the dependence on alien freshwater
finfish in aquaculture has been steadily increasing over the years. Entire national aquaculture industries
have been built upon alien species, particularly in nations that have taken up aquaculture in recent
times, as in the case of the freshwater crayfish and salmonid culture in Ecuador and Chile, respectively (10, 11).
Disease DA
Disease DA 1NC
We are at the borderline – Antibiotic resistance is a looming threat
Painter 4/30, Painter 4/30/14, USA Today, “WHO sounds alarm on widespread 'superbug' infections,”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/30/who-alarm-superbug-infections/8502853/,
NR
Doctors in the United States, including those at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
have used similarly strong words of late about so-called "superbugs" and "nightmare bacteria." They
applauded WHO for sounding the alarm on a problem seen every day in U.S. hospitals and doctors'
offices. "It's scary. It's not over exaggerated," says Barbara Murray, an infectious-disease expert at the
University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and president of the Infectious Diseases Society of
America. "It's here and it's now. In hospital settings, it's bad and in some community settings, it's bad."
Steve Solomon, who directs a CDC office devoted to the issue, says: "The threat is tremendous. We are
truly threatened with falling off the edge of this cliff into the post-antibiotic era. But I'm also optimistic.
The commitment to address this issue is strong."
Offshore aquaculture expansion in the US will use antibiotics – that creates resistance
that spreads to humans
Ocean Conservancy -2010, A Precautionary Approach to U.S. Open-Ocean Aquaculture,
http://act.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/federalMarineAquaculture7.pdf
To date, promoters
of domestic open-ocean aquaculture have downplayed the significant risks that could
accompany the growth of such an industry in the US. A large body of peer- reviewed scientific literature
has identified a host of risks and impacts, including: • Escapes: Aquaculture is known to be a major source for the
introduction of exotic species, causing concern over the ecological impacts that escaped farmed species can have on wild f ish.3 Escaped fish
compete with wild fish for food and habitat, transmit diseases, and prey on and breed with local fish, reducing the health of wild populations. •
Diseases and Parasites: Intensive fish culture has been involved in the introduction and/or amplification of
pathogens and disease in wild fish populations.’ • Nutrient and Habitat Impacts: By design, untreated wastes from open net
pen systems are released directly into nearby bodies of water, which can negatively impact the surrounding environment6 Waste and uneaten
food can build up on the ocean floor beneath pens, altering species abundance and community biodiversity. • Impacts on Predator Populations:
The presence of captive fish held in high density attracts predators such as birds, sharks, and marine mammals. Techniques to keep some of
these predators at bay can impact their natural behavior and pose entanglement and drowning risks. • Drugs and Chemicals: Aquaculture
often relies on the use of chemicals including antibiotics, pesticides, and antifoulants.7 In some cases, use of
antibiotics has resulted in bacterial resistance in the environment8 and has influenced antibiotic
resistance in humans.9 • Increased Fishing Pressure on Wild Fish Stocks: Though counterintuitive, farming of fish can actually increase
pressure to catch wild fish. Feed for many farmed species contains high percentages of fish meal and fish oil that come from wild-caught fish.1°
To feed their livestock, the fish farming industry is creating pressure to remove key food sources on which economically and environmentally
important wild species depend.’1 • Socioeconomic Impacts: Farmed fish compete with wild fish in the marketplace.t2 While price competition
may be good for consumers, it can result in negative impacts on communities dependent on wild fish, including industry consolidation,
overproduction arid elevated fishing pressure on wild fish stocks as fishermen try to catch more to make up for lower prices at market.
The spread of antibiotic resistant diseases causes extinction
Keating, Foreign Policy web editor, 9
(Joshua, “The End of the World”, 11-13-09,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/the_end_of_the_world?page=full, ldg)
How it could happen: Throughout history, plagues have brought civilizations to their knees. The Black Death
killed more off more than half of Europe's population in the Middle Ages. In 1918, a flu pandemic killed an estimated 50
million people, nearly 3 percent of the world's population, a far greater impact than the just-concluded World War I. Because of globalization,
diseases today spread even faster - witness the rapid worldwide spread of H1N1 currently unfolding. A global outbreak of a
disease such as ebola virus -- which has had a 90 percent fatality rate during its flare-ups in rural Africa -- or a mutated drug-resistant
form of the flu virus on a global scale could have a devastating, even civilization-ending impact. How likely is it?
Treatment of deadly diseases has improved since 1918, but so have the diseases. Modern industrial farming techniques have been blamed for the outbreak of
diseases, such as swine flu, and as
the world’s population grows and humans move into previously unoccupied
areas, the risk of exposure to previously unknown pathogens increases. More than 40 new viruses have emerged since the
1970s, including ebola and HIV. Biological weapons experimentation has added a new and just as troubling complication.
Link – AQC => Resistance
Aquaculture causes antibiotic resistance and subsequent disease outbreaks
Greenpeace 8(Michelle obtained her PhD in biomedicine from the University of Exeter and Postgraduate Medical School of the
Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital Paul obtained his PhD from the University of London in 1984 for research into the aquatic toxicity of
selenium. Paul now has 20 years experience in providing scientific advice to Greenpeace offices around the world, David is a senior
scientist with the Greenpeace Research Laboratories, with more than 10 years experience in providing analytical support and scientific
advice to Greenpeace offices worldwide. David is a marine and freshwater biologist who obtained his PhD from the University of
London- “Challenging the Aquaculture Industry on Sustainability Technical overview” Greenpeace Research Laboratories [Page 12-13]
M.V)
Intensive aquaculture greatly increases the risk of disease outbreaks
among stock by concentrating many individuals in a small volume (high stocking density), maintaining
continuous production cycles for many years and allowing wastes to accumulate in ponds or beneath cages
(Pearson and Inglis 1993, Buchmann et al. 1995). As consequence, a wide variety of chemicals and drugs may be
added to aquaculture cages and ponds in order to control viral, bacterial, fungal or other pathogens
2.1.3 Chemicals used to Control Diseases:
(Gräslund and Bengtsson 2001; Wu 1995). Pesticides and Disinfectants: Gräslund and Bengtsson (2001) noted that there is generally a
based on
knowledge of the types of chemical used there is a cause for concern. For instance, chemicals identified as
being used at that time in Thai shrimp farms included copper compounds and triphenyltin, an organotin
compound. These compounds are likely to leave persistent, toxic residues in sediments, which can, in
turn, cause negative impacts on the environment. In addition, copper is moderately to highly acutely
toxic to aquatic life. The use of triphenyltin compounds had already been banned in some other Asian countries. A more recent
lack of information about the quantities of chemicals used in shrimp farming in southeast Asian countries. However,
survey of shrimp farms in Sinaloa, Mexico, reported that pesticides were not used (Lyle- Fritch et al. 2006). Antibiotics Challenging the
A range of antibiotics are in use worldwide in
aquaculture to prevent or treat diseases caused by bacteria. With regard to the usage of antibiotics in aquaculture,
Aquaculture Industry on Sustainability: Technical Overview 12:
the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed a Code of Conduct for Responsible fisheries (FAO
1995). The Code indicates that preventative use of antibiotics in aquaculture should be avoided as far as possible and any use of
antibiotics should preferably be under veterinary supervision (Holmström et al. 2003). Preventative (or prophylactic) use of antibiotics
entails their use on a regular basis to prevent disease rather than to treat disease when it occurs. Holmström et al. (2003) noted that,
whereas for shrimp farming in general, there is little published documentation on usage patterns of antibiotics, there was evidence
Such regular preventative
application increases the risk of bacteria becoming resistant to the antibiotics in use, leading to serious
problems if resistance is developed by a bacterial strain that can cause disease in the aquaculture
stock. Furthermore, there is a risk that bacteria which are pathogenic (cause disease) in humans could become
resistant to an antibiotic, which is used to treat the disease in humans. This could be a serious risk to
public health (Miranda and Zemelman 2002).
that prophylactic use of antibiotics was a regular occurrence on many shrimp farms in Thailand.
Antibiotics used in aquaculture mean pathogens develop a resistance
The Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform ’11 (David Suzuki Foundation, Georgia Strait
Alliance, Living Oceans Society, T. Buck Suzuki Foundation, “Excessive Antibiotics”,
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org/salmon-farming-problems/health-concerns-chemicaluse/excessive-antibiotics/) LL
Large volumes of antibiotics are used in salmon farming to treat disease. Open net-cage aquaculture systems
encourage antibiotic use because farmed fish are fully exposed to diseases and parasites that occur in the ocean environment.¶ With the
combination of exposure to disease and the ability of disease pathogens to multiply quickly in the high density conditions common to netcages, excessive and preventative antibiotic use is common practice in the salmon farming industry .¶ Farmed
salmon are treated with antibiotics through medicated baths and medicated food. By law, a “withdrawal period” – a set number of days
between the last use of the antibiotic and the harvest of fish for human consumption – must be met in order to limit the residues of antibiotics
in the final product to safe levels.¶ The major cause of concern with the use of antibiotics in farmed salmon (and other livestock) is that many
of these antibiotics are also used to treat human diseases. Frequent use of antibiotics in aquaculture
and other industries poses a risk to human health by allowing disease microbes to become resistant to
antibiotic treatments – making it more difficult to treat human disease. The multistakeholder World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue commissioned a report on chemical use in salmon farming.1 The committee of expert scientists that
authored the report explain that:¶ “…this use of large volumes of antibiotics can only be explained by excessive and prophylactic [preventative]
use. Excessive and prophylactic use of antibiotics in animal husbandry is in general the result of shortcomings in rearing methods and hygienic
conditions that favor animal stress, and opportunistic infections and their dissemination.Ӧ The committee of scientists, including a research
scientist from Fisheries and Oceans Canada marine environmental sciences division, raised concerns about the large quantities of antibiotics
that are applied in Chile and in BC. The quantity of antibiotics prescribed per metric ton of production is significantly higher in comparison to
Norway or Scotland.¶ In open net-cage fish farming
it is likely for antibiotics to pass into the environment, affecting
wildlife remaining in the environment for extended periods of time. The report concludes that “antibiotic-resistant
organisms in the marine environment will, in turn, pass their antibiotic resistance genes to other
bacteria, including human and animal pathogens.” The whole ecosystem (including fish, shellfish,
marine mammals, and human beings) is affected.¶ The industry continues to rely on these treatments,
administered in net-cages open to the ocean, despite growing concerns over antibiotic resistance.2
Chemicals used in aquaculture cause diseases and antibiotic resistance in the entire
ecosystem
Deike 3/19 (John, 3/19/14, “Is Farmed Salmon Safe to Eat?”, Staffwriter for EcoWatch,
http://ecowatch.com/2014/03/19/is-farmed-salmon-safe-to-eat/) LL
Five years ago, global fish farming production lapped wild catches as the primary source of all seafood consumed, and two years ago, global
aquaculture production outpaced global beef production. ¶ Environmentalists had sounded past warnings to avoid farmed salmon, mainly
because the carnivorous
fish are fed animal-derived proteins called “fish meal,” or fish oil made from
anchovies, which have been shown to carry Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other toxins that can
make their way into the human food supply.¶ “It’s fair to say that salmon farming is better than it used to
be, but it used to be horrendous,” wrote Oceana contributor Justine Hausheer. ”Even the best farms still pollute their
waters with parasiticides, chemicals and fish feces. The Chilean farmed salmon industry uses over
300,000 kilograms of antibiotics a year, causing bacterial resistances that affect fish, the environment
and human beings.” ¶ Additionally, farmed salmon can leap out of the oceanside pens they are raised in,
which can potentially spread disease or unwanted genes to wild populations already under stress from
overfishing, pollution and shrinking habitats.
Accelerated growth of aquaculture causes the overuse of antibiotics – that creates
resistant pathogens that spread to humans
Cabello 06, Felipe C. Cabello, M.D. and Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, 7/1/06, “Heavy
use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal health and for
the environment,” Environmental microbiology, 8(7), 1137 - 1144-1144,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01054.x/full, NR
The accelerated growth of finfish aquaculture has resulted in a series of developments detrimental to
the environment and human health. The latter is illustrated by the widespread and unrestricted use of
prophylactic antibiotics in this industry, especially in developing countries, to forestall bacterial
infections resulting from sanitary shortcomings in fish rearing. The use of a wide variety of antibiotics in
large amounts, including non-biodegradable antibiotics useful in human medicine, ensures that they
remain in the aquatic environment, exerting their selective pressure for long periods of time. This
process has resulted in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in aquaculture environments, in
the increase of antibiotic resistance in fish pathogens, in the transfer of these resistance determinants
to bacteria of land animals and to human pathogens, and in alterations of the bacterial flora both in
sediments and in the water column. The use of large amounts of antibiotics that have to be mixed with
fish food also creates problems for industrial health and increases the opportunities for the presence of
residual antibiotics in fish meat and fish products. Thus, it appears that global efforts are needed to
promote more judicious use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture as accumulating evidence
indicates that unrestricted use is detrimental to fish, terrestrial animals, and human health and the
environment.
Link – A2: Plan ends use of Antibiotics
Aquaculture unlikely to discontinue use of antimicrobial agents – proven through last
50 years
FAO, OIE, WHO ‘6 (“Antimicrobial Use in Aquaculture and Antimicrobial Resistance” Pg. 33-34 –June
13-16, 2006 http://www.who.int/topics/foodborne_diseases/aquaculture_rep_13_16june2006%20.pdf?ua=1)
Antimicrobial use in cultured aquatic species has paralleled the growth of aquaculture over the last 50
years. As the proportion of intensive culture systems and the number of new species under culture has grown, so
have the diversity of antimicrobial agents and the extent of their use. Factors influencing the risk of
disease in intensive culture systems are well described and include high stocking densities and reduced water quality.
However, sometimes overlooked is the fact that the number of new species introduced into culture also contributes to an
increase risk of disease as a result of the learning curve experienced by culturists in developing efficient production systems. As the
production systems become more refined the need for and the use of antimicrobials can be reduced by improvements in husbandry and
alternate management tools such as the use of vaccines. Constraining the use of antimicrobials in aquaculture is a variety of factors that include
high cost, prohibited or uncertain regulatory status, infeasible routes of administration, poor absorption, toxicity, and environmental
considerations. Nevertheless, the
drive to minimize production losses and the relative availability of antimicrobial
agents in certain regions has contributed to the use of antimicrobials in aquaculture. Not unlike human and terrestrial
counterparts, bacterial resistance to antimicrobials has become widespread in aquaculture. Antimicrobials are applied to aquatic species in
their culture system. The
ability to remove aquatic species from their culture system and treat them on an
individual basis is often limited to high value individuals, such as broodfish or ornamental fish. Systems for applying injections to
multiple animals are limited to infrequent applications such as vaccines and are not routinely employed for antimicrobials on a production
basis. Although antimicrobial therapy should be guided by principles of disease diagnosis and rational chemotherapeutic selection and
administration, empirical
therapy and prophylactic use have caused concern for the development of
antimicrobial resistance. Of particular concern is the potential for the development of resistant bacteria that
could be transferred to humans through food handling and consumption.
Link – A2: Doesn’t get to Humans
Fish Bacteria Can Affect Humans – Epidemiological and Molecular evidence
Cabello 06, Felipe C. Cabello, M.D. and Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, 7/1/06, “Heavy
use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal health and for
the environment,” Environmental microbiology, 8(7), 1137 - 1144-1144,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01054.x/full, NR
Not unexpectedly, exchange of genes for resistance to antibiotics between bacteria in the aquaculture
environment and bacteria in the terrestrial environment, including bacteria of animals and human
pathogens has recently been shown (Sørum, 1998; Rhodes et al., 2000a,b; Schmidt et al., 2001a,b;
Sørum, 2006). For example, strong epidemiological and molecular evidence exists indicating that fish
pathogens such as Aeromonas can transmit and share determinants for resistance to antibiotics with
pathogens such as Escherichia coli isolated from humans (Rhodes et al., 2000a,b; Sørum, 2000; L’AbeeLund and Sørum, 2001; Sørum and L’Abée-Lund, 2002; Sørum, 2006). Incompatibility IncU plasmids
containing determinants for resistance to tetracycline encoded by Tn1721, have been disseminated
between Aeromonas salmonicida, a fish pathogen, and the human pathogens Aeromonas hydrophila,
Aeromonas caviae and E. coli obtained from different geographical locations in Europe (Rhodes et al.,
2000a). Similar molecular epidemiology studies in A. salmonicida have shown that plasmids that contain
class 1 integrons found in human pathogenic bacteria, and are able to transfer with high frequency to E.
coli and Salmonella, are responsible for the resistance to trimethoprim, sulfonamide and streptomycin
in this bacterium (Sørum and L’Abée-Lund, 2002; Sørum, 2006). The sulfonamide-resistant determinant
SulI has also been found in plasmids present in A. salmonicida and bacteria of other niches including
Erwinia (a plant pathogen), Vibrio cholerae and E. coli, thereby suggesting the transfer of genetic
information between all these bacteria of the terrestrial and aquatic environment (L’Abee-Lund and
Sørum, 2001; Sørum, 2006).
Antibiotics in aquaculture empirically cause resistance in humans
Benbrook 2 (Dr. Charles M. Benbrook, Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center, February
2002, “Antibiotic Drug Use in US Aquaculture”, http://iatp.org/files/421_2_37397.pdf) LL
European researchers have made significant progress in understanding the mechanisms¶ through which antibiotic resistant bacteria that
emerge on fish farms can move to humans.¶ First, a team of British and Irish scientists documented the distinct movement of
resistant¶ bacterial pieces of DNA from fish hatcheries into E. coli and Aeromonas species isolated from patients in hospitals (Rhodes et al.
2000). They concluded
that: “Collectively, these findings provide evidence to support the hypothesis that the
aquaculture and human compartments of the environment behave as a single interactive
compartment.” (Rhodes et al. 2000) Second, Danish researchers found that many bacteria in and around four
trout farms¶ were resistant to “most antibiotic agents presently available for use in Danish aquaculture”¶
(Schmidt et al. 2000). While there are some barriers (e.g., water temperature¶ ) to the spread of¶ many
common bacteria from fish to humans, there are pathways unique to aquaculture. For¶ example, ornamental
fish imported from abroad are often aggressively treated with antibiotics¶ prior to export to the United
States. Since ornamental fish are brought into the home and¶ people come into contact with the fish and the water and tanks they are kept
in, they can serve¶ as another source of multiple antibiotic resistant bacteria.¶ Third, in Ecuador, which exports a
large quantity of pond- raised shrimp to the United¶ States a cholera outbreak was suspected to be linked to
inappropriate use of antibiotics in¶ industrial shrimp farming practices (Weber et al. 1994). What becomes clear in
each of these¶ cases is that a number of highly complex environmental scenarios emerge that can lead to¶ bacterial
resistance transfers from aquaculture practices to humans.
Link – A2: No Antibiotics in Open Ocean AQC
Expansion of offshore aquaculture will create demand for antibiotic use permits
Food & Water Watch – October 2007, Open Ocean Aquaculture: Chemicals of Concern to Human
Health and the Environment, http://nsapes.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/ChemicalsOfConcern.pdf
While inland aquaculture facilities, such as hatchery tanks, are required by their permits to manage the
release of chemicals and fish wastes into the environment, the permits for offshore aquaculture
facilities do not have to mandate the treatment of discharged effluents. As of October 2007, no
antibiotics have been approved to treat the adult fish typically raised in offshore cages. However, if
offshore aquaculture operations are built at the scale predicted by the federal government, such in
tensive production would undoubtedly create the demand for drug companies to petition FDA to
approve antibiotics for fish in offshore aquaculture.
Impact XT
Antimicrobial Resistance Will Lead to Extinction
Desikan 11
Prasanna Desikan, Department of Microbiology, Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre,
8/17/11, “Antimicrobial resistance and extinction,” Indian J Med Microbiol 2011;29:207-8, NR
Quite obviously, antimicrobial resistance is a phenomenon that has reached pandemic proportions
because it has been fuelled by human need, greed and irresponsibility. The result is a face off between
Homo sapiens and an entire array of micro-organisms, be they bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites.
Though diminutive, micro-organisms are formidable foes. They have been around on this planet for
much longer than we have, and have survived odds that we cannot even begin to comprehend.
Considering the fact that microbial cells outnumber human cells in our bodies in a ratio of 10:1, we are
more microbes than human beings. And, if this is war, then it is an exercise in self destruction.
Antibiotic Resistance is the Next Global Catastrophe
Moisse 12, Katie Moisee, 3/16/12, “Antibiotic Resistance Could Bring ‘End of Modern Medicine’,” ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/03/16/antibiotic-resistance-could-bring-end-of-modern-medicine/, NR
As bacteria evolve to evade antibiotics, common infections could become deadly, according to Dr.
Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organization. Speaking at a conference in
Copenhagen, Chan said antibiotic resistance could bring about “the end of modern medicine as we know
it.” “We are losing our first-line antimicrobials,” she said Wednesday in her keynote address at the
conference on combating antimicrobial resistance. “Replacement treatments are more costly, more
toxic, need much longer durations of treatment, and may require treatment in intensive care
units.”Chan said hospitals have become “hotbeds for highly-resistant pathogens” like methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus, “increasing the risk that hospitalization kills instead of cures.” Indeed,
diseases that were once curable, such as tuberculosis, are becoming harder and more expensive to
treat.Chan said treatment of multidrug resistant tuberculosis was “extremely complicated, typically
requiring two years of medication with toxic and expensive medicines, some of which are in constant
short supply. Even with the best of care, only slightly more than 50 percent of these patients will be
cured.”Antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella, E. coli, and gonorrhea have also been discovered.
“Some experts say we are moving back to the pre-antibiotic era. No. This will be a post-antibiotic era. In
terms of new replacement antibiotics, the pipeline is virtually dry,” said Chan. “A post-antibiotic era
means, in effect, an end to modern medicine as we know it. Things as common as strep throat or a
child’s scratched knee could once again kill.”The dearth of effective antibiotics could also make surgical
procedures and certain cancer treatments risky or even impossible, Chan said. “Some sophisticated
interventions, like hip replacements, organ transplants, cancer chemotherapy and care of preterm
infants, would become far more difficult or even too dangerous to undertake,” she said. The
development of new antibiotics now could help stave off catastrophe later. But few drug makers are
willing to invest in drugs designed for short term use. “It’s simply not profitable for them,” said Dr.
William Schaffner, chairman of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville.
“If you create a new drug to reduce cholesterol, people will be taking that drug every day for the rest of
their lives. But you only take antibiotics for a week or maybe 10 days.” Schaffner likened the dilemma to
Ford releasing a car that could only be driven if every other vehicle wasn’t working. “While we try to
encourage the pharmaceutical industry to create new antibiotics, we have to be very prudent in their
use,” he said. But there are ways to limit the potential for bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance: Use
antibiotics appropriately and only when needed; follow treatment correctly; and restrict the use of
antibiotics in food production to therapeutic purposes. “At a time of multiple calamities in the world, we
cannot allow the loss of essential antimicrobials, essential cures for many millions of people, to become
the next global crisis,” said Chan.
Impact – A2: Disease Defense
Disease causes a mass number of deaths, extinction is possible
Viegas, 08, Journalist at National Academy of Sciences and Discovery Communications, “How disease
can wipe out an entire species”, (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27556747/ns/technology_and_sciencescience/t/how-disease-can-wipe-out-entire-species/#.U68Kuhb6IpE)
Disease can wipe out an entire species, reveals a new study on rats native to Australia's Christmas Island
that fell prey to "hyperdisease conditions" caused by a pathogen that led to the rodents' extinction.¶ The
study, published in the latest issue of the journal PLoS One, presents the first evidence for extinction of
an animal entirely because of disease.¶ The researchers say it's possible for any animal species, including humans, to
die out in a similar fashion, although a complete eradication of Homo sapiens would be unlikely.¶ "I can certainly imagine local population or even citywide 'extinction,' or population crashes due to
introduced pathogens under a condition where you have a pathogen that can spread like the flu and has the pathogenicity of the 1918 flu or Ebola viruses," co-author Alex Greenwood, assistant professor of biological sciences at
The 1918 flu killed millions of people, while Ebola outbreaks have helped to
push gorillas close to extinction.¶ For the Christmas Island study, Greenwood and his colleagues collected DNA samples from the island's now-extinct native rats, Rattus macleari and R.
Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., told Discovery News.¶
nativitatis, from museum-housed remains dating to both before and after the extinction event, which occurred between 1899 and 1908. ¶ Co-author Ross MacPhee, a curator of vertebrate zoology at the American Museum of
Natural History in New York, N.Y., explained that Charles Andrews of the British Museum documented at the time that black rats were first brought to the island via the S.S. Hindustan in 1899. The ship-jumping black rats then
carried a protozoan known as Trypanosoma lewisi. A related organism causes sleeping sickness in humans. Fleas are the intermediate host for one of the developmental stages of Trypanosoma, and the only likely method (of
disease spread) is infected fleas crossing from black rats to endemic rats," MacPhee told Discovery News. ¶ After the Hindustan's arrival, the native island rats were observed staggering around deathly ill on footpaths. Shortly
thereafter, they were never seen again.¶ The museum DNA samples showed that Christmas Island native rodents collected before the black rats invaded the island were not infected with the protozoan, but six out of 18 collected
"If you push a population down to an
unsustainable number then it will collapse. In addition, if a substantial number of reproducing
individuals became infected and ill, even if they survived the infection, their reproduction rate may be
lowered and lead to a population crash."¶ Given the rats' fate, scientists are concerned about Tasmanian devils, which have been dying in record numbers due to devil facial tumor
post-contact were infected.¶ Eight great extinct species"Not every rat would have to be infected," Greenwood explained.
disease, a contagious cancer for which the carnivorous marsupials appear to have no immunity.¶ Such island species seem to be more vulnerable to extinction by disease. In a prior study, MacPhee determined that at least 80
percent of all species-level losses during the past 500 years have occurred on islands.¶ "The general explanation for islander susceptibility would presumably be that island denizens live in a sort of bubble, protected by water
barriers from diseases prevalent on mainlands or elsewhere," MacPhee explained. "But when the bubble is broken -- think measles epidemics in Iceland in the 19th century -- the mortality can be extreme."¶ Karen Lips, associate
professor of zoology at Southern Illinois University, told Discovery News that the new research was "well done and convincing, despite the limited number of samples available."¶ She also pointed out that island-like conditions
exist within mainland areas.¶ "I work up on mountaintops, another kind of island with high endemism, which is greatly affected by emerging infectious disease," she said.¶ Elk in North America, for example, have suffered
worrisome population losses due to wasting diseases induced by prions. Various South Pacific fruit bats and amphibians are also under threat now due to infectious diseases.¶ "What can be done?" asked MacPhee.¶ "Probably
nothing other than captive conservation," he added. "Most wildlife biologists are hoping that such diseases, although severe, will eventually accommodate and the species will pull through."
Impact – Turns Case – Economy
Antimicrobial resistance collapses the economy and trade – turns case
World Health Organization 2014 (April, 2014, WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within
the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting
norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health
trends. http://www.who.int/about/en/ “Antimicrobial resistance”) LL
New resistance mechanisms emerge and spread globally threatening our ability to treat common
infectious diseases, resulting in death and disability of individuals who until recently could continue a
normal course of life.¶ Without effective anti-infective treatment, many standard medical treatments will fail or turn into very high risk
procedures.¶ AMR kills¶ Infections caused by resistant microorganisms often fail to respond to the standard
treatment, resulting in prolonged illness, higher health care expenditures, and a greater risk of death.¶
As an example, the death rate for patients with serious infections caused by common bacteria treated in hospitals can be about twice that of
patients with infections caused by the same non-resistant bacteria. For example, people with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus, another common source of severe infections in the community and in hospitals) are estimated to be 64% more likely to die than people
with a non-resistant form of the infection.¶ AMR hampers the control of infectious diseases¶ AMR
reduces the effectiveness of
treatment; thus patients remain infectious for a longer time, increasing the risk of spreading resistant
microorganisms to others. For example, the emergence of Plasmodium falciparum resistance to artemisinin in the Greater Mekong
subregion is an urgent public health concern that is threatening global efforts to reduce the burden of malaria.¶ Although MDR-TB is a growing
concern, it is still largely under-reported, compromising control efforts.¶ AMR increases the costs of health care¶ When
infections
become resistant to first-line drugs, more expensive therapies must be used. A longer duration of illness
and treatment, often in hospitals, increases health care costs as well as the economic burden on families
and societies.¶ AMR jeopardizes health care gains to society¶ The achievements of modern medicine are put at risk
by AMR. Without effective antimicrobials for prevention and treatment of infections, the success of organ transplantation, cancer
chemotherapy and major surgery would be compromised.¶ AMR has the potential to threaten health security, and
damage trade and economies¶ The growth of global trade and travel allows resistant microorganisms to
be spread rapidly to distant countries and continents through humans and food. Estimates show that AMR
may give rise to losses in Gross Domestic Product of more than 1% and that the indirect costs affecting society may be more
than 3 times the direct health care expenditures. It affects developing economies proportionally more than developed ones.
Impact Calc – O/W Warming
Antibiotic Resistance Outweighs Global Warming
Prynne 6/25, Miranda Prynne, 6/25/14, “Longitude Prize to focus on the battle against antibiotic
resistance,” The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10926683/LongitudePrize-to-focus-on-the-battle-against-antibiotic-resistance.html, NR
The development of antibiotics has
added an average of 20 years to our life expectancy, yet the rise of
antimicrobial resistance is threatening to make them ineffective. This would render many common infections
untreatable. Many scientists insisted antibiotic resistance poses a greater threat than climate change with
the Government's Chief Medical Officer Professor Dame Sally Davies calling it a "ticking time-bomb".
Politics DA
Politics Link 1NC
Centralization under NOAA costs PC
John McQuaid - 12/3/09, “In Search of New Waters, Fish Farming Moves Offshore,” Yale Environment
360, journalist specializing in science and environment, has written for the Washington Post,
Smithsonian, Slate, U.S. News, Wired, and Mother Jones,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/in_search_of_new_waters_fish_farming_moves_offshore/2216/
“There is no regulatory framework in place — if you were to submit an application for an aquaculture
site in the EEZ, it’s possible it would never be looked at by anyone,” says Richard Langan, the director of
the University of New Hampshire’s Atlantic Marine Aquaculture Center, which has been experimenting
with offshore techniques at test sites off the Atlantic coast for more than a decade. Last summer,
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service approved a plan that would open the Gulf of Mexico’s
offshore waters to aquaculture. NOAA lawyers and policy planners are devising regulations for that, but
the one — and only — thing that fish farmers, environmentalists, and government officials agree on is
that the United States and other countries need to come up with truly national plans. An obvious
solution is to put a single agency — possibly NOAA, the lead agency on ocean policy — in charge. The
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and Pew Oceans Commission, which both recommended major
reforms in recent years, both favored this idea. But it all depends on the contentious, unpredictable
politics of fisheries. Such a change requires a new law from Congress. There’s no bill yet (Leonard says
some members are drafting one), and when one is introduced, it won’t necessarily be easy to pass.
Many fishing industry organizations oppose offshore aquaculture, fearing possible competition,
pollution, and navigation hazards. Food and Water Watch, a Washington-based environmental group,
opposes any expansion of offshore fish farming because of the potential threat to the ocean
environment. Other groups want significant restrictions that offshore fish farmers would oppose. Until
there’s a national policy, most offshore aquaculture will take place in state waters, where authority is
divided between states and federal agencies. For the time being, some entrepreneurs are moving to
countries with lower costs, less red tape — and less environmental oversight. O’Hanlon says he
transferred his operations from U.S. waters off Puerto Rico to Panama in part because of bureaucratic
frustration. Sims, of Kona Blue, is planning a new aquaculture project off the Mexican coast after the
Hawaii state government wouldn’t give him a permit to expand his existing operations. “There’s a lot of
emotion and knee-jerk sentiment against the idea of farming fish, and I don’t get it,” Sims says. “...We
have to hope the overwhelming logic of moving toward sustainable mariculture will hold sway, but I’m
not sure it’s happening fast enough, because a lot of entrepreneurship and investment is flowing
overseas.”
Politics Link 2NC
Plan causes politics fights – empirically proven
Bill Frezza – 11/26/12, fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Regulatory Uncertainty Drives
Fish Farmer to Foreign Waters, Real Clear Markets,
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/11/26/regulatory_uncertainty_drives_fish_farmer_to_
foreign_waters_100008.html
NOAA made several attempts a decade ago to promote a national aquatic farming initiative that would
cut through the red tape and set up a one-stop-shop for deep-water fish farming permits. Bills were
introduced in Congress twice but were shot down due to opposition from entrenched fishing interests.
While this sort of short-term protectionism is always politically popular, the reality is that domestic
fisheries continue to shrink due to catch limitations. A thriving deep water aquaculture industry could
provide sustainable jobs for old fishing communities, repurposing much of the fishing fleet and dockside
infrastructure to handle the new business. Perhaps someday. As for now, Brian is focused on making his
venture a success in a country that still understands the value of economic freedom.
Politics – A2: Plan = Exec
Circumventing Congress causes backlash – magnifies the link to the DA
Allison Winter – 4/23/09, NYT, Obama admin hands offshore aquaculture oversight to NOAA,
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/23/23greenwire-obama-admin-hands-offshore-aquacultureoversig-10648.html
The Bush administration's last attempt to advance offshore fish farms came in a 405-page proposal for
renewable energy that the administration put forward last July. The rules govern the leasing of ocean
tracts in federal waters for wind projects and hydropower projects that would harness waves and
currents. Bush's MMS tucked in a provision that would have also allowed "alternate" uses of offshore
facilities -- including deep ocean ports or aquaculture. House Democrats and environmental groups
maligned Bush's proposal, saying MMS lacks authority and expertise for such permitting. They blasted
the provision as an indirect way for the Bush administration to advance an agenda for offshore
aquaculture that it had failed to move through Congress.
Australia CP
Australia CP 1NC
The Commonwealth of Australia should substantially increase its development of the
aquaculture industry, including by decreasing and harmonizing regulations on
aquaculture.
Australia can uniquely take the helm of aquaculture with feeding supplies and
leadership
Lehane, ’13 (Sinead Lehane, 8/27/13, FDI research analyst, Future directions International, “Fish for
the Future: Aquaculture and Sustainability” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/food-andwater-crises/1269-fish-for-the-future-aquaculture-and-food-security.html)
Australia is in a unique position to engage with the aquaculture industry in the Indian Ocean region and
provide considerable support for its development. Fish trade in the region is strong and Australia, as a
key trading partner in the agricultural sector, can monitor and support its stability while providing
guidance to partner nations and establishing new trade opportunities. The ongoing research into feed
alternatives is also a key priority for future aquaculture expansion. The potential use of Australian grains
and agricultural products for future feed supplies creates a unique opportunity for global marketing.
Currently 20-25 thousand tonnes of lupins are used annually in aqua-feed in Norway, Japan and
Australia. As the use of wild fish as feed in aquaculture farming is addressed, Australia will increasingly
find new trade opportunities in feed development, production and export. The aquaculture industry in
Australia is witnessing rapid growth, with bluefin tuna, one of the most lucrative fish species farmed
along the south coast. Atlantic salmon and tiger prawns are two other high-value species farmed in
Australia, along with rainbow trout, barramundi and various species of molluscs. With health and safety
standards restricting many aquaculture farmers in developing states, Australia could play a vital role in
technology transfer and systems management for others in the region.
2NC Solvency
Australia has better natural conditions for aquaculture than the U.S. and other
countries
Starck, 09 (Walter Starck, one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs, PhD in
Marine Science; “Green slime: Our biggest environmental threat”, Golden Dolphin, June 2009,
http://www.goldendolphin.com/WSarticles/GreenSlime-AusmarineJune09.pdf)
Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector in world food production. For the past three decades, global
production has increased by over 1,200 percent with an average compound growth of around nine
percent per annum. Australia, with some 60,000km of mostly uninhabited coastline well suited for
aquaculture, a benign climate and unpolluted waters, clearly has vast potential, yet development of the
industry is now declining after a weak start. A comparison of Australian aquaculture production with
that of a sampling of other nations is instructive. Thailand and Vietnam each have only about one-eighth
of Australia's coastline; but both have around 30 times greater aquaculture production than Australia.
The EU has over 40 times greater. Even New Zealand has over double Australia's production. Although
the small size of Austral ia's industry has been attributed to higher cost structure there is obviously
something more to it than this. Certainly Australian costs for land, labour, equipment, energy and
feedstock are at no disadvantage to Canada, France, Japan, Norway, the UK, or the US. Yet all have
hugely greater aquaculture industries. The real reason is only one thing: over-regulation. Despite the
world's best natural conditions for it, aquaculture in Australia has been strangled at birth by an
impossible morass of regulations. It is only these regulatory demands which impose multi-fold greater
expenses, delays and uncertainties than anywhere else. Apart from a few exceptions that became well
established before regulation made new operations uneconomic, aquaculture here has actually been
declining in recent years while it continues to boom elsewhere. The only sector booming here is
regulation.
Land-based Aquaculture CP
1NC
Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase grants and
subsidies for the development of land-based aquaculture in the United States.
CP massively expands land-based aquaculture – investor interest already exists
Wheeler 13 – JD candidate @ Golden Gate University School of Law
Garrett, “A Feasible Alternative: The Legal Implications of Aquaculture in the United States and the
Promise of Sustainable Urban Aquaculture Systems” Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal
Vol. 6 Iss. 2 [http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=gguelj] //
As the federal governm ent continu es to encourage the expansion of ocean-based aquaculture in the
EEZ, not only will the environment be subject to an array of potential threats, but those looking to invest
in the domestic production of seafood will al so be confounded by legal uncertainties and liabilities
imposed by the CWA and other laws. Rather than continue to press for an unsusta inable system
plagued by liability and staunch opposition from the environmental community and fishermen, new
incentives in the form of grants, subsidies, and political support are needed to aid the development of a
sustainable urban aquaculture industry. The alternativ e is to allow the American legal system to
continue regulating through n that is both inefficient and costly. In more concrete terms, urban
aquaculture may be the only way to provide fresh, local seafood while steering clear of environmental
problems and possible legal liability. ¶ Although the extent to which sustainable aquaculture practices
will be implemented in the United States is not clear, the promise of domestic seafood production
flourishing within its cities is real. Minimal impact on the environment equates to minimal legal
expenditure, and investors and entrepreneurs are already beginn ing to show interest. It is the challenge
and duty of future gene rations “to encourage the art of aquaculture in urban areas and plan cr eatively
for its beauty and utility in revitalized cities.” 181
Land-based aquaculture solves fish demand and avoids environment disads to
offshore production
Wheeler 13 – JD candidate @ Golden Gate University School of Law
Garrett, “A Feasible Alternative: The Legal Implications of Aquaculture in the United States and the
Promise of Sustainable Urban Aquaculture Systems” Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal
Vol. 6 Iss. 2 [http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=gguelj] //
Although considerable scholarly analysis has been devoted to the environmental problems and legal
complexities surrounding the development of open-ocean aquaculture, 11 little has been written on the
alternative: sustainable land-based facilities. These systems are models of modern ecological
engineering and can be located anywhere, including urban settings such as brownfields, 12 abandoned
industrial sites, and warehouses. They can feed local populations and provide local jobs without
compromising the health of our oceans and wild fish stocks. Sustainable land-based systems are already
operating in American cities like Brooklyn, 13 Baltimore, 14 and Milwaukee. 15¶ Recirculating
aquaculture systems (RAS) and aquaponic systems are closed-loop, land-based farms that re-use water
and are capable of producing fish, vegetables, flowers, fruits, and herbs. 16 RAS technology eliminates
the environmental probl ems associated with conventional aquaculture methods, such as outdoor pond
systems and ocean net pen systems. RAS facilities are “susta inable, infinitely expandable,
environmentally compatible, and have the ability to guarantee both the safety and the quality of fish
produced.” 17 Unlike conventional systems, which are limited by environmental and geographic
constraints, as well as the threat of disease transference, indoor systems can produce fish in completely
controlled environments without risk of escapement or spread of disease. 18 Moreover, RAS conserves
heat and water through water reuse, running on ninety to ninety-nine percent less water than
conventional systems and providing environmentally safe waste- management treatment. 19¶ Growth
and change are a ll but inevitable for the United States’ aquaculture industry. The environmental
problems associated with ocean-based operations and their trad itional land-based counterparts are
inexorably linked and therefore must inform both established and developing regulatory bodies of law.
The current legal regimes affecting aquaculture production in the United States, in particular the federal
Clean Water Act, will play a central role in shaping the development of the industry.¶ Sustainable, landbased aquaculture technologies, including recirculating systems, promise to provide environmentally
sound aquaculture methods that are in many ways legally and economically preferable to ocean-based
technologies. These systems are not only feasible, but essential to achieving an environmentally
sustainable aquaculture industry. The implementation of such technologies should therefore be
encouraged through the introduction of new law and policy initiatives.
2NC Solvency – Commercially Viable
It’s commercially viable even if start up costs are higher – spend less money on
vaccines and feed, plus fish can be grown faster
Boychuck 14
Evelyn, “Farming salmon on land is possible, project suggests”
[http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/farming-salmon-on-land-is-possible-project-suggests-1.2482754]
January 6 //
Summerfelt says that despite the price tag of start-up and maintenance, “land-based closed
containment systems, when they’re at larger scales, are cost-competitive, we think, with the
traditional production methods.Ӧ The overall cost of land-based fish farming will likely be higher
than that of a net-pen system. But money can be saved on land because fewer food pellets are
wasted and “we have better survival because we keep the diseases out," said Summerfelt.¶ "We
don’t have to vaccinate the fish, which is costly, we don’t have to use pesticides to treat sea lice,
which is costly.”¶ These savings bring the cost of the two systems closer together, he says.¶ “We were
told we couldn’t raise the salmon and get good growth or good survival in full freshwater, and we
aren’t seeing that,” says Summerfelt.¶ The Namgis closed-containment project had a few hiccups with
delivery times for some of the equipment, but Hildering says, “we’re applying the technology, and it’s
working."¶ The first cohort of salmon entered the system on March 18, 2013, and “the first premium
fish [three to five kilograms each] will be harvested in March, a year after entry,” says Hildering.¶
Atlantic salmon, reared on land, grow to market size in about a year, which is “six to nine months
sooner than in a net-pen,” Summerfelt added, “and we get very good survival.”¶ Market projections
suggest that there may ultimately be as much as a 30 per cent mark up in the price of land-reared
salmon over other Atlantic salmon already available in the supermarkets. But a significant portion of
her organization’s fish are already pre-sold, says Hildering, showing that people are willing to pay
more for a sustainable, antibiotic and pesticide-free product.¶ According to Summerfelt, land-based
aquaculture systems can be located anywhere, even in the prairies. Their location can help minimize
the cost of transporting fish to the market, or they can be located where there’s less expensive
power.
It’s commercially viable – new production models
Suzuki No Date
David, “Closed containment is affordable”
[http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/oceans/science/sustainable-fisheries-and-aquaculture/closedcontainment-is-affordable/]
We know that net-pen aquaculture threatens wild salmon, and we also know that the industry is a
profitable one that contributes significantly to local, provincial and national economic accounts. The
good news is that an increasing body of evidence shows that land-based, closed-containment
aquaculture is an environmentally, technically and economically viable option to net-pen
aquaculture.¶ It's generally accepted that closed containment aquaculture has the ability to
drastically reduce environmental impacts on the marine environment, but there is still debate
whether the technology is adequate for commercial-scale production and if it economically feasible?
At a Speaking for the Salmon workshop on land-based closed-containment aquaculture, Dr. Andrew
Wright presented his study "Technologies for Viable Salmon Aquaculture: An Examination of LandBased Closed Containment Aquaculture".¶ Dr. Wright, an engineer by training who holds a handful of
patents, demonstrated that land-based closed containment is technically viable on a commercial
scale by designing a system using widely available, off-the-shelf components. He further
demonstrated that his system is economically viable, with a capital investment that is reasonable and
in-line with new technology, and low operating expenses, resulting in a healthy cash flow that
materializes in the early years of the operation. The study even finds that profits can be significantly
increased when waste is used as a feedstock for a secondary product, such as lettuce.¶ The bottom
line: for a $12-million investment, you can expect anywhere from $5- to $13-million in yearly profits.
Not a bad investment!
2NC NB – Environment DA
Land-based aquaculture avoids the disad – isolated facilities means no disease spread
or invasive species
Wheeler 13 – JD candidate @ Golden Gate University School of Law
Garrett, “A Feasible Alternative: The Legal Implications of Aquaculture in the United States and the
Promise of Sustainable Urban Aquaculture Systems” Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal
Vol. 6 Iss. 2 [http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=gguelj] //
Compared to the negative environmental impacts of ocean-based aquaculture facilities, the negative
impacts of land-based systems are easily minimized. Unlike ocean-based operations, isolated terrestrial
facilities have fewer problems with escapement. 49 The spread of disease is also easier to control
because fecal matter and feed waste are not in direct contact with the surrounding marine ecosystem.
CP resolves all the links to the environment DA
FoodandWaterWatch.org 8
“Land-Based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems” [http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/landbased-recirculating-aquaculture-systems/#] November 26 //
Widespread open-water fish farming methods, such as coastal ponds and open-ocean aquaculture
(OOA), can seriously damage marine ecosystems and are far from providing the safe and sustainable
seafood many consumers want. In particular, OOA – the mass production of fish in huge floating net
pens or cages in open ocean waters – raises concerns about consumer safety, pollution of the marine
environment and conflicts with other ocean uses.¶ Fortunately, RAS can likely provide a cleaner, greener,
safer alternative to open-water farms that does not compete with other ocean uses. These systems are
usually land-based and reuse virtually all of the water initially put into the system. As a result, RAS can
reduce the discharge of waste and the need for antibiotics or chemicals used to combat disease and fish
and parasite escapes – all serious concerns associated with OOA and pond aquaculture.