TRANSCRIPT - Dr. David Suzuki Interview
David is a geneticist, founder of the David Suzuki Foundation,
and a Professor at the University of British Columbia. He
also hosts the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's science
television series, "The Nature of Things" and is
author of "Science Matters."
the "silver bullet" for future sources of food?
A lot of people
recognize that we've got limitations in terms of land on which to
farm. We've got exploding populations that are looking for future
sources of food and they see the oceans as the magic bullet, the
place where we're suddenly going to have opportunities to harvest
limitless amounts of protein. My response to that is that it is
true that agriculture is what created the big revolution in human
evolution. We've now had ten to twelve thousand years to experiment
with agriculture, to develop techniques, and we're still doing stupid
things like spraying toxic chemicals all over the land, into the
water, into the air and we think that this is proper industrial
But the oceans represent a vast area. Yes there is opportunity there
but a vast area about which we are virtually ignorant. We are terrestrial,
air breathing land lovers. The ocean is a complete mystery to us.
The oceans cover seventy percent of the planet. We have no idea
what is down there, let alone how things interact and are interconnected.
So suddenly we are going to go in with our very powerful technology
and we're going to exploit this with very little notion of what
the long term consequences will be. I think this is very fool hardy.
We've had plenty of experience in the last fifty years to see the
impact of industrial logging, to see the impact of industrial animal
husbandry; we've had lots of experiences to say that we should be
much more cautious and much more humble.
But no, we're going to go full tilt into the oceans and we're going
to create unbelievable problems. We already see it with the aquaculture
Are there similarities between the mindset that has allowed for
the collapse of wild fisheries and the mindset that is now promoting
the expansion of aquaculture?
I think that
there is a commonality in the mindset that has led to the over harvesting
of fish around the world and the mindset that suddenly sees that
aquaculture is this enormous opportunity, and that mindset I think
is the deadliest aspect of the environmental crisis around the world.
It is a notion that we are so clever that we know enough to be able
to exploit resources, to impose our technology and to be able to
anticipate what the problems are. So over and over again because
we think we are so smart we invent a technology like DDT. Yes it
kills bugs, very powerful, but you know insects are the most numerous
most successful group of organisms on the planet. Maybe one out
of every thousand of species of insects is a pest to human beings.
Now the idea that we're going to us a chemical that kills all insects
just to get at the one or two that are a pest to humans strikes
me as the most ludicrous form of management. That is like saying
I'm going to manage crime in Vancouver, we'll kill everybody in
the city. You will get rid of crime but that is kind of stupid.
Over and over
again we have this kind of simple minded idea that we can come in
with very powerful technologies without any understanding of complexity
or of interconnectedness, impose our technology and then get the
surroundings to yield what we want. We want to pump nature on steroids
and get ever more productivity and you know one of the things I've
learned from native people is the word respect. If you don't respect
other people you're not going to learn a damn thing from them. If
you don't respect the natural environment then you're going to try
to impose you're will on it and we're always going to get slapped
in the face. And its time that we paid a bit of attention to past
experience it seems to me.
What is the most important change that is required in the way that
the government approaches the development of a sustainable aquaculture
In order to
develop a sustainable aquaculture we have to start with an understanding
of our enormous ignorance. We know nothing about the ocean marine
ecosystems, their components or how they're all interdependent.
That said then we ought to go with tremendous caution. If the oceans
are important to us, and they are, the oceans are where we were
born. The oceans are a vast reservoir of our relatives, animals
and plants that live there. If those things are important to us
then we should go in with an understanding that we're going to approach
very gingerly and whatever we're doing, the most important aspect
is to protect the pristine nature of those systems.
I think right
now that our government in British Columbia has basically understood
that the coastal marine areas are in very bad shape through clear
cutting and urban development toxic pollution and they're essentially
writing off wild stocks and looking at the water simply as a medium
to grow more protein. I think we ought to have much greater respect
for the complexity in the oceans. So I think protection of wild
ecosystems of the oceans should be our highest priority and whatever
we do should not threaten that. Indeed our department of fisheries
and oceans is charged with protecting marine organisms. That is
their requirement, they're mandated by parliament and yet the Department
has become like a booster to the aquaculture industry. They accept
all of the hype of the industry and seem to have forgotten their
primary role, which is to protect the organisms that live there.
To what degree do you think that the government's strong support
for the salmon aquaculture industry in BC has compromised their
ability and responsibility to protect and restore wild salmon populations?
In Canada both
federally and provincially, governments have become such boosters
of the aquaculture industry that they really are blinded by that
faith, that faith that the aquaculture industry is constantly hyping
us with that they know what they're doing, that we have the highest
standards in the world that we care about the wild organisms and
the oceans. But they become blinded by the hype of the industry
and at the very time that provincially governments are cutting back
on our ability to even monitor the industry by cutting back the
fisheries departments, the industry itself is expanding like mad
and I don't see how there can be any responsible overseeing by the
current bureaucracy either federally or provincially. I should say,
you know I've seen this in other areas. Biotechnology which is an
area I was involved with as a scientist is a truly exciting and
it is so young and revolutionary the extent of our ignorance in
the area is still enormous and yet governments have become such
heavy boosters of biotechnologies that they discount any of the
critics or people raising profound questions are dismissed, and
its the same thing with the aquaculture industry. What is remarkable
to me is that aquaculture lobbyists can come and hammer the hell
out of its critics and proclaim all of these wonderful things without
ever being asked, "wait a minute now aren't you just like a
lobbyist for the tobacco industry who told us for decades that smoking
wasn't harmful. Why do you have any credibility?" No one ever
asks that. They get up and harangue and say, "oh no all those
environmentalists have a hidden agenda." What's our agenda?
My agenda is right out in the open. My agenda is that our health
and our survival is dependent on the health of ecosystems around
the world. That includes marine ecosystems. Yeah, I have an agenda
and I'm trying to protect it. But why does that diminish the credibility
then of people who are criticizing the industry?
Is there any financial involvement between the Department of Fisheries
and the aquaculture industry?
I don't know
about the political links, about how closely the aquaculture industry
is tied to the political parties nor do I know anything about whether
money has exchanged hands. There are lots of rumors and so on, but
I simply don't know. I think it's worth pursuing. If there is a
conflict of interests they ought to be nailed on that.
Do you think that the government has yet to effectively respond
to the real dangers of the spread of disease or the threat of parasite
with the responsive government both provincially and federally to
the real crisis can be seen for example in the collapse of the pink
salmon run in the Broughton Archipelago a couple of years ago, which
was a catastrophic collapse and the problem is that the governments
are so busy covering their asses that there is a constant denial,
"no the evidence is lousy, you're not a reputable scientist."
All the kinds of things that happened to Rachel Carson when she
published Silent Spring forty years ago. It's a denial in an attempt
to discredit the critics. It seems to me that an organization, a
bureaucracy charged with protecting natural systems would immediately
respond, "oh my god you know if this is true we've got to do
Lets go in,
find out, lets be more cautious," but instead its a constant
covering of backsides by trying to discount the evidence. And then
when forced to finally admit this is serious they've got to do something.
Then they try to put a band aid on the system. "You know we'll
move it away from the salmon." What the hell do they know where
the salmon all go! "We're going to fallow." You know I
hate the use of terminology of agriculture. Agriculture is ten thousand
years old. The idea that they're raising these fish as if they were
farm animals is absolutely ludicrous. We are in a frontier mentality;
this industry in a seriously large way has only grown in the last
twenty years. We're making it up as we go for god sakes. We talk
about fallowing and all that stuff. We're pouring chemicals into
open nets. Whatever you pour into there is going to drop down and
be spread throughout the oceans.
The simple solution
obviously is until we learn a bit more lets keep those salmon and
the water separate from the oceans that we value so much. You know
why not do the right thing. Its going to cost a little bit more
but damn it all it should. You know? And lets protect the things
that have evolved over ten thousand years and they are ultimately
the source of our knowledge. If you want to farm fish properly then
at least let's know some thing about the basic biology of the wild
animals and we can learn from that. But instead we go ahead and
we think we're so hot shot we can go in and start breading them
and putting chemicals in them and genetically engineering them and
we're going to get bigger yields. I think that is unbelievably arrogant.
How could the BC salmon industry utilize environmentally sound closed
container systems while still remaining competitive with countries
such as Chile and Norway?
The issue that
is always thrown out from the aquaculture industry is this is a
global business. We're competing with big outfits in Chile, in Norway,
in Scotland and you're asking us to ad the extra burden of solid
containment? We'll go belly up. We can't afford it. Well the reality
is that this is a very young industry having got its foot through
the door. Having established as stronghold, suddenly their very
survival becomes the dominant element determining everything we
do. Sorry. We've got it wrong. This is an activity that right now
is absolutely damaging. There is no question about that. It is harming
the ocean ecosystems and it cannot continue this way and if it means
the aquaculture industry in BC has to go belly up, I'm sorry! That
is not my dominant concern here. People have fished wild salmon.
Wild salmon are the icon for this province and to lose that for
the sake of the salmon farmers who have been around for twenty years,
most of whom are owned by countries off shore? That is not going
to be a high priority for me.
we face is that the economics of it all now are absurd. Here we
are raising an animal, a very expensive animal, to feed the rich
countries and what are we feeding people? We're feeding them the
equivalent of lions if we're talking about mammals. We're dealing
with carnivores. In order to grow that high end market meat we're
feeding them perfectly edible fish. This strikes me as an unbelievable
luxury and we want to worry then about whether this industry can
sustain itself. This is a luxury and industry that is being subsidized
by not paying the proper ecological price of destruction of food
sources in other places, pollution, disease and so on. Because we're
not paying for all that then there appears to be a "glut"
on the market and prices are going down. We should be paying the
proper price for those salmon and its probably something most people
won't want to pay. So I think that the economics of it all are crazy
and are discouraging us from doing the right things.
Do you think that First Nation communities that make deals with
salmon farming companies to farm salmon are making a deal with the
devil, or do you think that they are environmentally feasible?
One of the most
difficult aspects of fish farming in British Columbia today is the
agreements that are being made between the First Nations and the
fish farming companies, and this had been a very difficult one for
me. I've been working with first nations now since the late 1970s
and I've certainly had long discussions with Percy Star and Archie
Robinson of the Kitasu and the Clamtu. And I've had long discussions
with the Hiltsu community in Bella Bella. I've been adopted by one
of the families in Bella Bella and this is a very difficult thing.
For me the issue is one of poverty and inequity. You know environmentalists
are seen as tree huggers and people that care about seals and whales
and stuff like that, but we have to realize that at the center of
the ecological crisis is humanity. It's humanity and the way we
are living on this planet.
It's one of
the great ironies to me that the people who are originally of this
land, for whom vast amounts of British Columbia are still their
territory and intact, are still the poorest of the people in the
province. Billions and billions of dollars in resources, trees,
fish, and minerals have been taken out of the lands of the First
Nations and yet they are the last to receive any of the benefits
of that. Would you go into a community with eighty, eighty five
percent unemployment even though they have long traditions, they
understand their connectedness to the land. Hell they taught me
everything I know about environmentalism! They've been my teachers,
but when you have eighty-five percent unemployment in your community
you are focused on other things and so I talked to Percy about this.
They did not want to go into fish farming. Wild fish were the life
blood of the Kitasu people, but they were desperate and they got
into it and now they are begging environmentalists and they begged
me, "if you don't like it please help us. What are the alternatives?
Is there a better way of doing it?"
open to that and it's painful to them to have to enter into those
agreements. So it's not an easy issue. On the other hand if you
look at the people in Alert bay and see what the impacts of fish
farming have been economically -- which has been squat to the people
in ah Alert Bay - and in terms of the sea lice and diseases, they
have been devastated by the impact. There has been very little benefit
for them. So I think the brothers and sisters of first nations should
inform those who are about to enter into agreements with their own
experience. Educate them, but they are going to have to make up
their own mind. At this point there are too many questions about
open pens. Try to seek government subsidies for solid containment.
Do it as an experiment. Let's find out whether it can be done and
how to do it.
How do you respond to the claims that the risk of genetically altered
salmon interbreeding with wild salmon is so small, and that the
benefits of faster-growing fish ouweigh the potential dangers?
We're at a point
where genetic engineering is really at the beginning of its impact
on our lives. This is revolutionary technology. There is no doubt
about it. Now when a technology, a new technology, is mature that
means that you can take a specific sequence of DNA pull it out of
an organism and stick it into a very specific spot in the DNA of
another organism and predict with absolute certainty what that result
will be. Now when you can do that over and over again, then it's
a mature science. But then you can't publish papers. No one wants
to publish papers about something you know what the results will
be. The last time I looked, the biotechnology journals are filled
with papers. What does that mean? We know squat.
One of the leading
inventors of biotechnology, Craig Venter, who started Solara, which
is a company that really got the ball rolling on the human genome
project, regarded as a bit of a renegade, but he really drove the
completion of the human genome. You know he said a couple of years
ago and let me quote this in his words. He said that the amount
that we know about basic biology and cells and how they function
is less than one percent. He said we know shit about basic biology.
Now hearing that from one of the leading guys in a popular journal,
you then have to ask, if we know shit about this kind of basic information
how dare anyone have the arrogance to say I know for certain the
risks are that small.