In just a few weeks, the salmon farming industry in Tasmania have dumped around 700 kilograms of the controversial antibiotic Florfenicol into the D’Entrecasteaux Channel.
That’s more than 10% of all antibiotics used across the Tasmanian salmon industry in the last six years. Used. In less than two weeks.
But wait, there’s more… Tasmania’s salmon production is tiny compared to the Norwegian salmon farming industry. Yet in just a fortnight, Tasmanian companies have used more antibiotics than Norway’s annual average of 500kg.
Authorities also claim the treated salmon is “perfectly safe to eat”, yet recreational fishers are being warned not to eat fish caught within 3 km of the farms during treatment… But sure, nothing to see here, right?
So, Why Was It Approved and Why Is It Being Used So Heavily?
If you’re wondering how we ended up here, with hundreds of kilograms of antibiotics raining down into public waterways, the official explanation goes like this:
A serious bacterial disease, Piscirickettsia salmonis (P. salmonis), has been spreading through salmon farms in Tasmania. It typically worsens as water temperatures rise, making summer a critical period for infections. Industry pressure mounted, arguing that without intervention, farms would face major stock losses.
So, in early November, the APVMA granted an emergency permit allowing Tasmanian salmon companies to use Florfenicol, a broad-spectrum, high-potency antibiotic normally restricted to controlled agricultural settings.
That permit doesn’t just allow what’s already been used; it enables the deployment of between 5,600 kg and 11,200 kg of Florfenicol between now and August 2026.
In other words, the extraordinary volumes we’re seeing now are just the beginning.
Rather than requiring companies to destock diseased pens, reduce density, improve welfare conditions, or shift farming away from struggling waterways, regulators have effectively green-lit mass medication as the plan.
All while the consequences, ecological, economic, and possibly public-health related, spill straight into the ocean.
🦞Rock Lobster Industry
This is where the contradictions become impossible to ignore.
Just hours after the commercial rock lobster season opened, the government shut down two fishing zones within 3 km of salmon farms using Florfenicol.
Why?
Not because they know rock lobsters are unsafe to eat, but because export markets like China have strict “no-antibiotic residue” rules.
So let’s get this straight:
- China won’t accept seafood with antibiotic residues.
- Rock lobster fishers are locked out to avoid contamination risk.
- Recreational fishers have been advised not to eat fish caught near the farms for 21 days.
And yet…
Authorities still say the salmon being treated with these antibiotics is “perfectly safe to eat.”
How can both be true?
This is exactly the kind of double standard that erodes public trust.
If contamination is concerning enough to shut down multi-million-dollar export businesses, then we have every right to question why we’re being told this fish is “safe” to consume.
Health Risks to People & Ecosystems
⚠️ Environmental and microbial disruption
-
Research on salmon farms overseas has shown that Florfenicol exposure significantly alters the composition of bacterial communities in marine sediments beneath pens.
-
These disruptions can impair nutrient cycling and sediment health, undermining the foundational workings of marine ecosystems.
-
More alarmingly, the use of Florfenicol creates selective pressure for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Studies have documented the emergence of resistance genes, including the mobile “floR” gene, in aquaculture environments.
-
Once these resistance genes are established in the environment, they can persist for years and potentially transfer to other bacteria, including ones that infect humans.
🍽️ Human health and food-safety concerns
-
The regulatory notice from the Tasmanian authorities states there are currently no reports of adverse human health effects from consuming fish with trace amounts of Florfenicol.
-
Nevertheless, health authorities have advised recreational fishers to avoid eating fish caught within 3 km of treated salmon pens during treatment and for 21 days after, to reduce potential exposure to residues.
-
Independent experts caution that such residue-based exposures, especially repeated over time, could contribute to antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is widely recognised as a major global public health threat.
-
Even at low concentrations, antibiotics discharged into waterways can exert subtle but long-term selective pressure on microbial ecosystems, a concern often under-appreciated in regulatory approval processes.
In short, while regulators may claim that treated salmon are “safe to eat,” the broader ecological and resistance-related consequences are deeply uncertain, with the potential to end up back on our plates or in our environment.
Why Wild-Caught Salmon is a Better Option
If enough of us choose to buy wild-caught (or low-impact) seafood instead of farmed, we can hit this industry where it hurts: consumer demand.
Wild-caught fish and low-impact producers (like This Fish, which has lower stocking density and no antibiotics) offer a very different model.
Wild-caught fish:
- Don’t need antibiotics.
- Don’t rely on dense pens or intensive treatment regimes.
- Don’t threaten local fisheries or export markets with residue contamination
-
Eat their natural diet - not GMO, pesticide-laden soy, wheat and corn.
Nutritional differences matter, too
Wild salmon contains higher omega-3s and far lower omega-6s, giving it the anti-inflammatory benefits fish are famous for.
Farmed salmon, on the other hand, tends to have:
- more omega-6 (pro-inflammatory)
- synthetic pigments
- pesticide residues from parasite control
- GMO ingredients in feed
- vaccines
-
and now, antibiotics at unprecedented volumes
Fish should be incredibly healthy for you.
But fish grown in toxic, overcrowded, chemically treated conditions simply isn’t healthy.
If demand shifts away from farmed salmon, we can starve the industry of its profits.
From there, reform might actually happen. Or this toxic model of industrial fish farming might collapse entirely.
Final Thoughts
If there’s one thing this whole situation makes painfully clear, it’s this: industrialised farming has yet again chosen the quickest patch-up over the real solution.
Overstocked pens, poor-quality feed, stressed fish, and a system propped up by routine chemical use. Yet, instead of addressing any of these issues, the response is to add MORE chemicals?
It’s a reactive approach that avoids the uncomfortable truth: healthy, well-managed systems don’t need massive antibiotic dumps to stay afloat. Broken ones do.
Our oceans deserve better. And so do the local farmers, working hard to farm in a way that protects the environment rather than harms it.
Discover our range of wild-caught seafood here.
References
-
Tasmanian farmed salmon industry granted emergency federal approval to use florfenicol antibiotic. ABC News. 2025. ABC
-
Regulator Notice: Antibiotic Treatment – Administration of Florfenicol. NRE Tasmania / EPA Tasmania. 2025. nre.tas.gov.au+2epa.tas.gov.au+2
-
Influence of Florfenicol Treatments on Marine-Sediment Microbiomes: A Metagenomic Study of Bacterial Communities in Proximity to Salmon Aquaculture in Southern Chile. PMC / Microbiome Journal. PMC
-
Impacts of florfenicol on the microbiota landscape and resistome as revealed by metagenomic analysis. Microbiome Journal. 2019. SpringerLink
-
Salmon Farming – Antibiotic Resistance And Industry Crisis. Tasmanian Times. 2025. Tasmanian Times+1
-
Seafood Watch – Antibiotics in Aquaculture: State of Affairs. 2025. Seafood Watch+1
-
Public health concerns raised about antibiotic use in salmon farms. Croakey Health Media. 2025. Croakey Health Media
