The costs of eutrophication from salmon farming: Implications for policy - A comment

We are writing to express our concern regarding an article your journal published: ''The Costs of Eutrophication from Salmon Fanning: Implications for Policy'' by C. Folke et al. (1994). This article contained numerous errors and as we will show, a simplistic understanding of eutrophication and the processes controlling eutrophication. Furthermore, we consider that the use of media style language is potentially misleading and inappropriate for a scientific journal. We wish to point out that it is not our intention to argue that there is no potential risk of eutrophication from intensive fish farming. Indeed, we have collectively (Rosenthal et al., 1988) and individually (Gowen, 1994) argued otherwise. Our concern is a lack of scientific objectivity, as well as an inconsistent and inappropriate use of examples which may lead the reader to assume that eutrophication resulting from fish farming is a major threat to the coastal ecosystem. The article purports to analyse the environmental economic externalities associated with salmon farming. In doing so it presumes: that it is reasonable to compare urban sewage and salmon farm wastes; that a demonstrated linkage exists between salmon fanning and toxic algal blooms; and, that costs not reflected in market prices for its products make salmon farming an unsustainable industry.